Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1259 (DEL)

PRITAM SINGH SACHDEVA v. O. D. A

2002-08-27

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2002
( 1 ) ( 2 ) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is being disposed of. ( 3 ) PETITIONER has applied for allotment of flat under the 1979 Scheme on 11. 3. 1980 and deposited the initial charges. On 4. 4. 1981 the petitioner requested for change of address to Sector-6/967, R. K. Puram, New Delhi which address was duly noted. The petitioner thereafter wrote certain communications in july, 1987 and February, 1996 giving his correspondence address in Punjab but did not specifically asked for a change of address. It is, however, relevant to note that the respondent communicated to the petitioner at the changed address on 25. 7. 96 by sending a letter. The allotment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner on 10. 7. 1998 allotting flat No. 158, Sector 23, Pocket-I, rohini on the third floor to the petitioner at a total costs of Rs. 6,59,100/ -. Petitioner had made initial deposit of Rs. 3,24,800/- and taking into consideration certain other charges, the net demand of Rs. 2,97,043/- was made from the petitioner. This allotment letter was, however, sent at 6/967, r. K. Puram, New Delhi-110022 though below this address it is mentioned "kalkaji and/d-19". The said letter was returned with the endorsement that it was the wrong address. ( 4 ) THE flat was thereafter cancelled. The petitioner, however, claims to have come to know of it only on 10. 1. 2001 when the petitioner was informed by the respondent on enquiry that his flat has been cancelled. ( 5 ) IT is settled position of law in view of different judgments passed by this Court that in case respondent ails to note the change in address communicated, the allottee cannot be burdened with the additional costs for the fault of the respondent and must get allotment on the original price. In the present case correspondence address was communicated though a specific request for change of address was not made. However, what is important to note is that the respondent did communicate to the petitioner at the new address on 25. 7. 96. ( 6 ) TAKING into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the flat in question in terms of the costs as per allotment letter dated 10. 7. 7. 96. ( 6 ) TAKING into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the flat in question in terms of the costs as per allotment letter dated 10. 7. 1998 along with interest for delayed payment as per the norms of the respondent. The interest is being so burdened on the petitioner since there was no specific letter for change of address. An allotment letter be now issued to the petitioner at the same address as stated in the letter on the DDA dated 25. 5. 1996 within four weeks and on the petitioner making payment in terms thereof and completing necessary formalities, possession of the flat be handed over within four weeks thereafter. ( 7 ) IN case the particular flat allotted to the petitioner is not available, another flat in the same locality, same floor be allotted to the petitioner on the aforesaid terms. ( 8 ) WRIT petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. CM 885/2002. ( 9 ) NO further orders are called for on this application in view of disposal of the writ petition. Application stands disposed of.