2b42ee1a1921683ad89749cb79fc200b5aa6c017d11b885c6f4c5b84e0e1cfd5

1. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for directions to DDA to the effect that the revised Demand Letter received by the Petitioner on lO'^ September, 2012 cannot be read retrospectively.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner applied under DDA Housing Scheme, 2010 vide registration No.ll55789 dated 21.12.2010 for allotment of an HIG flat. On 18.04.2011, a draw of allotment of flats was held and the Petitioner was allotted Flat No.708, Yamuna Block-6, D-6, GRP-4, 7'^^ Floor at Vasant Kunj. A demand letter was issued to the Petitioner on 30.03.2012 setting out the net amount due in the sum of ? 94,20,172/- payable without interest by 31.03.2012 and fVPrC) 5772/2012 1 of[5] 2013:DHC:7269 K latest by 26.09.2012 with interest, the total amount including interest being? 97,68,589/-. Asper the policy of the DDA, the Petitioner was given six months time for making the payment and in the communication dated 3O''^ March, 2012 thepayment schedule was set out as under:- Demanded amountpayable by (**) 31-MAR-12 Demanded amount ifpaid by interest Payable including 31-MAR-12 31-MAR-12 942017[2].00 Ol-APR-12 28-JUN-12 942017[2].00 29-JUN-12 28-JUL-12 9536311.00 29-JUL-12 27-AUG-12 9652450.00 28-AUG-12 26-SEP-12 9768589.00

3. In the aforesaid communication, it was specifically mentioned as follows "Automatic cancellation, if demanded amount is not paid, by 26-SEP-12."

4. At the foot of the communication dated 30'^ March, 2012, the following was recorded:- "(*) Freehold/conversion charges are provisional, and undertaking is required for payment offurther increase, ifany. WPfC) 5772/2012 Pase[2] of[5] (**) Ifthe demanded amountis notpaid by this date, the allottee is liable to deposit it before the date of automatic cancellation given in column 12 along with interest @ 15% p.a. compounded as on 31 March, failing which allotment will stand cancelled automatically. Anyfraction ofmonth will be treated as one month. No show cause notice/intimation will be given by the DDAfor cancellation..

5. On 31®' August, 2012, a revised demand letterwas issued to the Petitioner after reducing the net amount due froni^ 94,20,172/to ? 84,37,209/-, and the amount payable by 26.09.2012 including interest was reduced from ? 97,68,589/- to ? 87,49,270/-. The Petitioner contends that the said demand letter, received by him on lO''^ September, 2012, showing the payment schedule from retrospective effect, i.e., from 30^March, 2012 deprives the Petitioner of the chance to make the payment in six months' time. The Petitioner further contends that he cannot be called upon to pay the demand from back date retrospectively and to pay interest of? 3,12,000/-, as the revised demand letter was actually received by him on 10^'' September, 2012.

6. I have heard the counsel for the parties. It is abundantly clear from a bare perusal ofcommunication dated 30'*^ March, 2012 which was admittedly received by the Petitioner that the last WPra 5772/2012 PaseSofS date for making payment of ? 97,68,589/- was 26.09.2012, after adjusting ? 1,50,000/- as registration amount. The date was specifically mentioned for payment with and without interest. Furthermore, it was also specifically mentioned in the said communication that non-payment of the sum of ? 97,68,589/- by 26"" September, 2012 would entail automatic cancellation of the flat in question. The foot note to the letter sets out in no uncertain terms that if the demanded amount is not paid by 26"^ September, 2012, the allottee is liable to deposit it before the date of automatic cancellation given in column 12, i.e., by 26^ September, 2012 along with interest @ 12% per armum compounded as on 31®' March, failing which allotment will stand cancelled automatically. No show cause notice/intimation will be given by the DDA for cancellation. Thus, the allottee was given sufficient time for making the payment ofthedemanded amount through provisional demandcum-allotment letter dated 30"^ March, 2012, i.e., six months time from 31"' March, 2012 to 26"" September, 2012. It was also clearlyspelt out that in case the paymentwas not made by 26^ September, 2012, interest @ 15% per annum compounded as on 3r' March, 2012 would be payable by the allottee vf without issuance ofany show cause notice by the DDA.

7. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the Office Order dated 19.04.2012 of the Respondent to treat the Demand Letter dated WPra 5772/2012 Pase4of[5] I 30.03.2012 as provisional is also misplaced as it is clearly stated in the said order that "Belated information of Engg. Wing that raising of demand in respect of these flats may be kept in abeyance could not be made effective as the demandcum-allotment letters in respect ofthe aboveflats have already been generated and issued to the successful allottees". It may be noted that by way of the revised demand letter no new demand has been raised and only some amounts have been j,. ' modified. There is also nothing on record to show that the Petitioner was intimated not to pay the demand in terms of the demand letter dated 30.03.2012 till the issuance of the revised demand letter.

8. In my considered opinion, therefore, the Petitioner cannot be heardto say that the revised demand letterreceived by him on 10.09.2012 having been issued to him subsequent to 30'*" March, 2012, the payment schedule set out in the said letter could not be with retrospective effect and the interestcould not levied.

9. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed. c KU-tr^

REVA KHETRAPAX (JUDGE) January 07, 2013 km