SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ( 1 ) ( 2 ) WITH the conaant of learned counael for the parties the matter ia taken up for final diapoeal. ( 3 ) THE petitioner regiatered under the NPR scheme, 1979 for allotment of Janta flat and in the draw held on 15. 12. 1989 waa allotted flat bearing No. 98, pocket B-7, Sector-17, Rohini at a diapoaal coat of ra. 63,500/- on hire purchaae baaia. The allotment letter dated 28. 3. 1990 waa iaaued in favour of the petitioner requiring the petitioner to make the depoeit on or before 26. 6. 1990 which waa ao depoaited. The petitioner alao depoaited the neceaaary documenta required for taking poaaeaaion of the flat vide covering letter dated 12. 11. 1990 but the possession letter was not iaauad. ( 4 ) IT ia atated in the petition that the petitioner came to know that the poaeeeaion letter was not being issued to the petitioner in view of the fact that the flat had been cancelled on account of late aubmiaaion of dooumenta. It ia atated in the petition that neither waa any ahow cauee notice iaaued to the petitioner nor waa the petitioner heard before the cancellation of the aaid allotment. ( 5 ) THE petitioner aent a repreeentation dated 3. 9. 2001 to the L. G and finally received a letter darted 8. 10. 2002 whereby it wae communicated that requeet of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative flat in the same zone and the eame floor had been acceded to at current coat. The petitioner received allotment-cum-demand letter dated 4. 1. 2002 allotting flat No. 18, Pocket-8, Block-C, sector-15, Rohini on hire purohaae basis but at the disposal coat of Re. 2,00. 400/- being at current coat. The petitioner repreaented againet eame vide letter dated 12. 1. 2002 and aubaequently filed the writ petition. ( 6 ) IN the counter affidavit it ia admitted that the flat allotted in 1990 waa cancelled on account of clauae 3 in the allotment-cum-demand letter to the affect that allottee wae required to submit all the relevant documents complete in all reapecta within 90 days from the date of iaaue of the letter but the aaid documents were submitted belatedly though the payment of inatalment was made within time. It ia further atated that once the documents were submitted, it was decided by the Competent Authority to reetore the flat but aubject to payment of reatoration charges. However, no detaile of any auch communication having been sent to the reapondant by the petitioner have been atated in the counter affidavit. ( 7 ) IT ia etated in the counter affidavit that the allotment waa eubaaquently made in 2001 at current coat. ( 8 ) I have heard learned oouneel for the partlea. ( 9 ) LEARNED counael for the petitioner has filed along with writ petition a copy of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of thia Court in CWP No. 827/97 aahok Kumar Khandalwal Vs. DDA decided on 12. 12. 2001 where a direction was iaauad to allot the flat to the petitioner therein at the old coat eince flat had been cancelled on account of non-eubmiaeion of document. The said judgment Relied on the DB Judgment of thia court in Ms. Asha N. Madnani Vs. DDA 1997 1ad (Delhi) 385 where a diatinction between default in making payment and the non-submission or delayed eubmiaaion of document was considered. The Division Bench was of the view that in caae of a mere default in filing of the documents (having no material bearing or eligibility or qualification for allotment) when the payment has been made, the allotment cannot be cancelled. This was so noticed in view of the fact that execution of lease and delivery of possession to allottee would be delayed in spite of having parted with money and the flat lying ready for delivery of possession. It was thus held that while terms as to payment as per schedule must be held to be mandatory while the terms as to submission of all the relevant documents along with proof of payment should be held to be directory. ( 10 ) REFERENCE has been made in Ms. Asha N. Madnani case (supra) to a decision of this court in Dhani Ram kaooor Vs. DDA 1997 1 AD (Delhi) 578. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner thus contends that in view of the aforesaid the non-submission of document was only a directory condition. ( 12 ) IN the present caae two aspecta has to be considered. Asha N. Madnani case (supra) to a decision of this court in Dhani Ram kaooor Vs. DDA 1997 1 AD (Delhi) 578. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner thus contends that in view of the aforesaid the non-submission of document was only a directory condition. ( 12 ) IN the present caae two aspecta has to be considered. Firstly there is no dispute about the fact that the only reason for the cancellation of the flat was delayed submission of the documents and thus the matter should be squarely covered by the Judgment of this court in Ms. Asha N. Madnani (supra) and Ashok Kumar khandelwal s case (supra ). However,present allotment is one on hire purchase baaia and thua only tha initial amount was paid and not tha full amount. Howevar, learned couhael for tha patitionar aubmita that thia aspect would not make diffaranca to tha mattar einca quaation of paymant of balanca inatalmanta would only arise after the poaaaaaion waa handad ovar. To that extent thara is force in aubmiaaion of tha laarnad couneal for tha patitionar ainca tha raepondant had wrongly oaneallad tha flat in viaw of tha aforaaaid judgment. ( 13 ) THE second aspact to ba considered is the delay in approaching tha Court by tha patitionar since the original allotmant waa mada in tha year 1990 and the representation has been mada by the petitioner only on 3. 9. 2001 and tha writ petition has been filed in the year 2002. In my considered view this would have material bearing on tha issue since the patitionar had not paid full price of tha flat but had only paid the initial amount and the balance amount had to be paid as per the hire purchase instalmants. This would hava no bearing if the petitioner had approached the court expeditioualy. The petitioner having failed to do so, equities must be balanced in thie behalf. ( 14 ) I am thua of the considered view that the petitioner would be entitled to the flat at the disposal cost of Rs. 63,500/- which waa the original cost in terms of the allotment letter dated 21. 3. 90 and thus that should be the cost for the flat now sought to be allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated 4. 1. 2002. 63,500/- which waa the original cost in terms of the allotment letter dated 21. 3. 90 and thus that should be the cost for the flat now sought to be allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated 4. 1. 2002. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner had approached the court belatedly and there is no explanation for the period 1990 to 2001, the petitioner should be liable to pay intereet at the rate of 12% p a from 1. 1. 1991 to 30. 9. 2001 on the balance amount payable after deducting the initial amount paid and the inatalmenta ahould be accordingly worked out by the respondent. The period has been so stated as the documents were deposited on 12. 11. 1990 requiring some time to give possession and the representation of petitioner available on record is 3. 9. 2001. ( 15 ) A fresh demand letter ahould be ieeued to the petitioner in reapect to the flat allotted now to the petitioner vide the demand letter dated 4. 1. 2002 on the aforesaid basis and the possesseion be handed over to the petitioner of the flat in question on the petitioner completing necessary formalities. The needful be done by the respondent within a period of four weeks from today. ( 16 ) WRIT petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own coste. ( 17 ) NO further ordera are called for on this application in view of disposal of the writ petition. Application stands disposed of.