Sunanda Bhandare, J. ( 1 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel forthe petitioner that the D. D. A. was estopped from demanding payment inlump sum for a flat which was registered under the Registration Scheme onnew Pattern 1979 (for short Scheme) of intending purchasers of flats to beconstructed by the Delhi Development Authority. It is further submitted thatthe respondent has made a demand at escalated price which is not payable bythe petitioner. It is submitted that the Delhi Development Authority has notstated the total number of flats allotted by them under the Scheme on Hire Purchase basis or on Cash Down basis. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referredto the judgment of this Court in D. D. A. Flats App. Association v. Delhi Development Authority, 1987 RLR 514 and submitted that the question raised by himis directly covered by the judgment of this Court. ( 2 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent thatunder the Scheme itself 40% of the M. I. G. flats were to be allotted on Cashdown basis and 60% of the flats on Hire Purchase basis. The Delhi Development Authority has allotted flats by draw of lots of the flats through computersas and when the flats were ready and 40% of the M. I. G. flats were allotted oncash Down basis and 60% of the flats on Hire Pruchase basis as per Prioritynos. of the registrants. It is further submitted that under the contract, the petitioner was liable to pay escalated price depending upon the exigencies of layout, costs of construction etc. ( 3 ) WE find that under clause 10 of the Scheme itself 40% of them. I. G. flats were to be allotted on Cash Down basis and 60% of the flats onhire Purchase basis. There is thus no, assurance given to any registrant thathe will be allotted a flat on Hire Purchase basis. We are unable to agree withthe contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Clause 16 of thescheme gives an option to the registrant to choose the mode of payment. Infact, it is submitted that the petitioner had registered himself for allotment offlat on Hire Purchase basis and, therefore, he cannot be asked to pay theamount in lump sum. We are unable to agree with this contention. We haveseen the original application form submitted by the petitioner at the time ofthe registration. Infact, it is submitted that the petitioner had registered himself for allotment offlat on Hire Purchase basis and, therefore, he cannot be asked to pay theamount in lump sum. We are unable to agree with this contention. We haveseen the original application form submitted by the petitioner at the time ofthe registration. There is no such column in the form which would give anindication that the registrant has opted for purchase of the flat on Hire Purchase basis. ( 4 ) IN DDA Flat App. Association s case, the Delhi Developmentauthority had changed the Scheme and abandoned proposal of allotment offlats on Hire Purchase basis. In the present case, the Scheme for allotmentof flats on Hire Purchase basis has not been abandoned and as and when theflats are ready a draw of lots is held and 40% of the flats are allotted on Cashdown Basis and 60% of the flats on Hire Purchase Basis. ( 5 ) IT is further submitted that the Delhi Development Authority hasnot stated the total number of flats allotted by them under the Scheme on Hirepurchase Basis or on Cash Down basis. ( 6 ) IN our view it was not necessary for the respondent to give theseparticulars in the counter-affidavit because no such averment has been madeby the petitioner in the writ petition and moreover the draw of lots is made atthe time of allotment of flats after the flats are ready in particular areas orwhen they are nearing completion. The Delhi Development Authority hadannounced in the Scheme itself that they will be constructing flats at severalplaces mentioned in the Scheme. The total number of flats that would beconstructed under the Scheme has not been mentioned in the Scheme and sincethere is no such averment in the writ petition, the Delhi Development Authority was not required to give these details in the counter-affidavit. ( 7 ) AS regards the question of payment on escalated rates, we findthat Clause 14 of the Scheme specifically states that the plinth area of theflats indicated and the estimated prices mentioned in the brochure are illustrative and are subject to revision/modification depending upon the exigencies oflay out, cost of construction etc. The petitioner has entered into a contractwith the Delhi Development Authority being fully aware of the terms and conditions of the contract. The petitioner has entered into a contractwith the Delhi Development Authority being fully aware of the terms and conditions of the contract. ( 8 ) A similar question came up for consideration before the Supremecourt in Bareilly Development Authority and Another v. Ajay Pal Singh andothers, JT 1989 (1) 368. The Supreme Court has held that the registrant afteraccepting the conditions imposed had entered into a contract, even though thecontract is with the State, it is non-statutory and the parties are governed bythe terms of the contract and no writ would lie. ( 9 ) THIS point raised by the petitioner, is thus clearly covered by thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Bareily Development Authorit y s case (supra ). ( 10 ) FOR the above-mentioned reasons we are not inclined to interfere. Dismissed. The petitioner has not made payment as per demand in view ofthe pendency of the writ petition. Therefore, we direct that on applicationbeing made by the petitioner for extension of time, the respondent will grantusual extension of time for payment on usual terms. No costs.