http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2490  of  2001

PETITIONER: R.  K.  SAXENA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/03/2001

BENCH: M.B.  Shah & S.N.  Variava

JUDGMENT:

S.  N.  VARIAVA, J.

Leave granted.

Heard parties. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   This  Appeal  is against an Order dated  29th  February, 2000  by which the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant  has been dismissed.  Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

   The  Respondent  held an auction sale on 28th  November, 1995.   At  this auction sale the Appellant was the  highest bidder.   In terms of the conditions of the auction sale the Appellant,  on  the  same  day,   deposited  a  sum  of  Rs. 6,54,500/-.   As  per  the  terms of the  auction  sale  the balance 75% of the amount had to be paid within 60 days from the  issue  of  the Demand Letter.  However,  if  sufficient cause  was shown then the Chairman could extend time up to a maximum  period of 180 days, subject to payment of  interest on  the  balance amount at the rate of 18% per  annum.   The Demand  Letter was issued on 3rd January, 1996.  The balance sum  of  Rs.   19,63,545/- had to be paid, in terms  of  the auction  sale,  within  60  days of the  said  letter.   The Appellant  deposited  a  sum  of  Rs.   5,50,000/-  on  19th February,  1996.  The Appellant then asked for extension  of time  to  make the balance payment.  By a letter dated  29th March,  1996  the  Appellant was granted extension  of  time subject to payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Thereafter  the Appellant again asked for extension of  time by a letter dated 2nd July, 1996.  The extension was granted by  a  letter dated 8th August, 1996.  It must be  mentioned that  by  this date the Appellant had deposited sums of  Rs. 1,50,000/-  on  25th  June, 1996, Rs.   4,00,000/-  on  29th August, 1996 and Rs.  1,40,000/- on 29th August, 1996.

   By  a  letter  dated 2nd September, 1996  the  Appellant again sought an extension of time.  To this letter there was no  reply.   The  Appellant  thereafter  paid  sums  of  Rs. 1,40,000/-  on 17th September, 1996, Rs.  3,10,000/- on 20th September, 1996, Rs.  1,39,000/- on 27th September, 1996 and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Rs.    1,34,500/-  on  27th   September,  1996.   All  these payments, even though, made beyond time were accepted by the Respondent.   The  Appellant had now paid the entire  amount payable  in respect of that plot.  Thereafter the  Appellant also paid interest on the delayed amounts at the rate of 25% per annum.  This amount was also accepted by the Respondent.

   In  spite  of having accepted the delayed  payments  the plot  was  not delivered to the Appellant.   The  Appellant, therefore, sent legal notices on 22nd June, 1999 and on 29th June,  1999.   Only after receipt of the legal  notices  the Respondent  by  letter  dated  1st  July,  1999  cancel  the allotment  and forfeit the earnest money of Rs.  6,54,500/-. The  Appellant  filed  a  Writ Petition  which  came  to  be dismissed  by the impugned Order dated 29th February,  2000. The  High Court held that after the expiry of the period the Appellant  could  not  have  deposited  the  balance  amount unilaterally  and  without any demand being issued  to  him. The  High  Court held that payments made after the  extended date  were not valid and legal tender of money in accordance with law.  On this basis the High Court refused to grant any relief to the Appellant.

   In  our  view,  the Order of the High  Court  cannot  be sustained.   To  be noted that by 27th September,  1996  the entire  amount  payable for the plot had been deposited  and delay  in  payment  was less than 30  days.   Thereafter  in January  1997  interest  at the rate of 25%  per  annum,  on delayed  payments, was also paid.  Both the delayed payments and  the  interest amount were accepted by  the  Respondent. The  moment  those payments were accepted there  was  deemed extension of time.  It is only after 1-1/2 years i.e.  after the  legal  notices  were served by the Appellant  that  the allotment  is cancelled by the letter dated 1st July,  1999, in  our  view,  on  the  facts of  this  case,  i.e.   after accepting the delayed payments and interest Respondent could not have cancelled the allotment.

   In the circumstances of this case, the impugned Order is set  aside.   The  letter of cancellation is  quashed.   The Respondent  is directed to allot, to the Appellant, the plot purchased   by   him.   The   Appeal  stands   disposed   of accordingly.  There will be no Order as to costs.

   J.  (M.  B.  SHAH)

   J.   (S.   N.   VARIAVA)

   March 30, 2001.