Judgment:
Mohd. Shamim, J.
(1) This is a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale and for possession over plot No. 12, Block 10, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi.
(2) The matrix of the case of the plaintiff is that on March 20, 1984 the defendant bad auctioned the leasehold rights in respect of a residential plot bearing No.12, Block No. 10, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. The plaintiff gave the highest bid for the aforementioned plot which was to the tune of Rs 4,23,000.00. The plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.1,05,750.00 with the defendant by way of earnest money on March 20, 1984. The defendant through the Director, Dda sent a letter dated March 23, 1984 to the plaintiff slating therein that the bid of the plaintiff for Rs. 4,23,000.00 for the said plot has en confirmed by the Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority. The plaintiff was further asked through the above said letter to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,17,261.00 within sixty days from the date of the issue of the said letter by a demand draft in favor of the defendant. The defendant thereafter sent a letter dated June 29,1984 to the plaintiff staling therein that the balance amount of Rs. 3,17,261.00 should have been deposited by the plaintiff by May 22, 1984. However, the defendant are extending the time for deposit of the balance sale price within fifteen days from the date of issue of the said notice.
(3) The plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 with the defendant vide demand draft dated June 12,1984 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, prior to the receipt of the letter dated June 29,1984 alluded to above. The plaintiff again requested through the letter dated July 9, 1984 to the defendant for further extension of time to pay the balance amount. The plaintiff thereafter received on September 22, 1984 a letter dated September 12, 1984 issued by the Executive Officer of the defendant that the request for further extension of time to pay the balance amount has been rejected and the bid of the plaintiff had been cancelled and earnest money to the tune of Rs. 1,05,750.00 had been forfeited.
(4) The plaintiff thereafter wrote a letter dated September 29, 1984 to the defendant pointing out the reasons for non payment of the balance amount within time and requesting that the order of cancellation be vacated and further time be granted to the plaintiff to pay the balance amount together with interest, if any. A reminder was also issued by the plaintiff on November 23, 1984 to the Commissioner of the defendant. The plaintiff approached the Commissioner, Dda, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi, and personally requested for extension of time. The Commissioner informed the plaintiff that it has been decided to condone the delay in payment and restored the bid subject to payment of balance sale price within fifteen days. The written confirmation about the restoration of the bid and extension of time was communicated to the plaintiff by the Executive Officer of the defendant by letter dated December 19, 1984.
(5) The plaintiff on the representation of the defendant that the bid of the plaintiff has been restored and time extended for payment, paid a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 vide draft No. 523183/3679/84 dated December 3, 1984 drawn on Syndicate Bank. The plaintiff duly informed the defendant about the deposit of the amount of Rs. 60,000.00 vide his letter dated December 14, 1984. After' receipt of the letter dated December 19, 1984 the plaintiff further deposited sum of Rs. 2,27,261.00 as per details given in para 14 of the plaint. The plaintiff also through his letter dated December 27, 1984 intimated the defendant with regard to payment of the full price of the plot. The plaintiff thereafter requested the defendant vide letters dated January 10,1985, July 4, 1986 and August 5, 1986 for delivery of the possession over the above said plot of land. The plaintiff also personally met the officers of the defendant from time to time for the execution of the necessary conveyance deed and delivery of possession of the plot inquestion.
(6) The plaintiff, however, to his dismay and horror received a letter dated September 2, 1987 from the Deputy Director of the defendant where through he was informed that the bid of the plaintiff in respect of the plot in question had been cancelled as. he had failed to deposit the balance price within the stipulated period. The plaintiff again made a representation, but to no avail.
(7) The defendant are estopped from cancelling the bid and forfeiting the earnest money as the defendant orally on November 30, 1984 and by writing dated December 19, 1984 had represented to the plaintiff that in case he deposits the balance amount within fifteen days from the receipt of the said letter the bid will not be cancelled. The plaintiff acting on the said representation bad deposited the same with the defendant. The plaintiff bad always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It has thus been prayed that the defendant be directed to specifically perform the agreement of sale in respect of the impugned plot by execution of the necessary conveyance deed in his favor and he be put in possession over the same.
(8) The defendant has put in contest, inter alia, on the following grounds: that the present suit relates to the specific performance of nazul land sold in auction by the defendant. The suit is as such barred by Section 31(C) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and it is liable to be dismissed. The suit is also barred by Section 54(b) of the Act inasmuch as the defendant were not served with any notice. The plaintiff was served with a notice on June 29, 1984 for making payment of the balance sale consideration within fifteen days from the date of issue of the said letter, but the plaintiff miserably failed to make the payment. No extension of time could have been granted since the plaintiff failed to make the payment within the stipulated period, the earnest money was forfeited and the bid was cancelled. The plaintiff no doubt requested vide his letters dated September 29, 1984 and November 23, 1984 but his request was not acceded to and was rejected. The bid was consequently cancelled.
(9) The letter dated December 19, 1984 issued by the Executive Officer of the defendant was without any authority inasmuch as he bad no authority to issue any such letter and to grant condensation of delay and to extend the time. The suit is false and frivolous and it is liable to be dismissed.
(10) The following issues were framed:-
1. Whetherthe land in question was Nazul land and because of Section 31(C) of D.D.A. Act suit is not maintainable? 2.Whether notice as required by Section 53(b) of Dda Act was served on the defendant? If not, what is its effect? 3.Whether the defendant could not grant extension of time to deposit balance consideration and as such communication dated 19th December, 1984 of the Executive Officer (OSB) is not binding on defendant? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of contract for reasons mentioned in paragraph 19 of the plaint
Issue No. 1
(11) Learned counsel for the defendant did not press the above issue. In view of the above, the issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No.2
(12) Learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the present suit is barred by the provisions of Section 53(b) of the Act inasmuch as no suit could have been instituted without the service of the notice on the defend nt as the provisions of Section 53(b) are' mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. Learned counsel for the plaintiff in order to controvert the said argument has led me through Ex. P 15 i.e. the copy of the notice which was sent to the defendant prior to the institution of the suit which is dated December 16, 1987 The postal receipt is Ex. P 16. Besides the above, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has also contended that a copy of the notice was also delivered by hand at the office of the defendant and endorsement was obtained on the copy itself ill token of the delivery thereof. The present suit was instituted on March 1, 1988 i.e. after the expiry of about two and a half months from the date of the delivery of the notice. Section 53(b) of the Act requires only two months notice prior to the institution of the suit. I am thus of the view that the above requirement was duly fulfillled and the instant suit by no stretch of imagination can be said to be barred by Section 53(b) of the Act.
(13) This brings to the most polemical issue in the present case i.e. issue No.3. Learned counsel for the defendant Ms. Salwan has vehemently contended that no time could have been extended by the defendant once the prayer for extension of time vide letter dated December 19, 1984 (Ex.P9) was not competent to do so and the said extension of time through the said letter cannot be taken into consideration by any stretch of imagination, thus cannot form the basis of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
(14) Learned counsel for the plaintiff Ms.Tasneem Ahmadi, on the other hand, has urged to the contrary. According to the learned counsel the period for making the payment was extended by the officers of the defendant when the plaintiff approached them at their office in person. Subsequently, the said period was extended by a letter (vide Ex..P9) written to the plaintiff by an officer of the defendant i.e. the Executive Officer, Shri E.V. Wyle.
(15) The sheet anchor of the defense argument as put forward by Ms. Salwan is that the said officer had no authority to do so. She has in this connection led me through an affidavit filed by Mr. Ajit Srivastava who has stated that the said officer had no authority to issue the same. In any case, there is no dispute that the said letter was very much written and issued from the office of the defendant.
(16) Thus, -the only controversy is as to whether the impugned officer had the authority to issue the said letter or not. The citizens of the country who are mostly illiterate person are not expected to know the intricacies of the roles and regulations. In any case, if there is any such dispute the defendant must set their house in order. They cannot be allowed to reap the fruits of their own mistake. They must drink as they have brewed. It is a well settled principle of law that in case a party is responsible for bringing about a particular situation he cannot turn around and then take the benefit of the said situation. This is exactly what has happened in the present case. The defendant issued a particular letter. The plaintiff acted upon the said letter and deposited a huge amount to the tune of Rs. 2,37,261.00 vide Ex. P 10. The defendant received the said amount and appropriated the same. It is also to be note-worthy that the said amount was deposited in the year 1984. We are now in the year 1993. The said amount is admittedly lying since then with the defendant and they are very much using and utilising the same to the detriment of the plaintiff and to their own advantage.
(17) I am supported in my above view by the observations of their Lordships of 'the Privy Council as reported in A.I.R (34) 1947 PC 40 (Canada and Dominion Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Ltd) (pr. 7)....
'Estoppel is a complex legal notion, involving a combination of several essential elements, the statement to be acted upon, action on the faith of it, resulting detriment to the actor. Estoppel is often described as a rule of evidence, as indeed it may be so described. But the whole concept is more correctly viewed as a substantive rule of law. The purchaser or other transferee must have acted upon it to his detriment, as for instance he did in- this case when he took up the documents and paid for them'.
(18) The above point again came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court as reported in Air 1957 Sc 1020 (Century Spinning & . and another v. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and another) (pr. 11), wherein their Lordships cited with approval the observations of Denning, L.J' as reported in Falmouth Boat Construction Co. Ltd. V. Howell, (1950) All. E.R. 538 ,..
'WHENEVER Government officers in their dealings with a subject take on themselves to assume authority in a matter with which the subject is concerned, he is entitled to rely on their having the authority which they assume. He does not know and cannot be expected to know, the limits of their authority, and he ought not to suffer, if they exceed it'.
(19) The above observations of Lord Denning are fully applicable and attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As I have already, observed above that it is not disputed by the defendant that the letter dated December 19, 1984 (vide Ex. P9) was issued to the defendant whereby time was extended and he was asked to make the payment, and the plaintiff acting upon the said representation deposited a huge amount to the tune of Rs. 2,27,261.00 in the year 1984. The defendant instead of raising even a tiny finger of protest with regard to the deposit of the said amount appropriated and utilised the same and had not returned it to the plaintiff. Thus, it is now too late in the day to turn around and to say that they are not bound by the said letter inasmuch as the bid has been cancelled and the earnest money has been forfeited.
(20) Besides the above letter, the plaintiff in his affidavit (vide para 10) had very categorically stated that he had also personally met the Commissioner, Dda on November 30, 1984 and requested him for extension of time and the Commissioner, Dda acceded to his request and condoned the delay and restored the bid subject to the payment of the balance amount within fifteen days from that date. There is absolutely nothing on record to disbelieve the plaintiff on this point inasmuch as the said avernment is not only an averment in the air. He obeyed the same and translated the same into action by depositing the amount within the stipulated period.
(21) In the circumstances stated above, I am of the view that the defendant are very much bound by the letter dated December 19, 1984 and they cannot allowed to say be that the time could not have been granted through the letter Ex. P9. The issue is thus accordingly decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No.4
(22) In view of the circumstance stated above, the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract and is very much entitled to the relief claimed. The issue is decided accordingly in favor of the plaintiff. Relief.
(23) The suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell in respect of plot No. 12, Block No. 10, Kalkaji Extension, Mor Colony, New Delhi, is hereby decreed with costs in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant. 'The defendant are hereby directed to specifically perform the agreement of sale with regard to plot No. 12, Block No. 10, Kalkaji Extension, Mor Colony, New Delhi, and to hand over the possession over the same within two months from today on payment of balance consideration, if any, within one month from today. On receipt of the balance sale consideration, if any, in case of their failure to do so within the time allotted by this Court, the plaintiff would be free to approach this Court for the specific performance of the agreement of sale and for handing over the possession over the plot, alluded to above, and in that eventuality a conveyance deed would be got executed by this Court in favor of the plaintiff in respect of the above said plot of land and the possession over the 'plot would be handed over through the Court. Since the plaintiff deposited the sale consideration in the year 1984 and the defendant have been using and utilising the same the defendant would not be entitled to any interest on the alleged late payment, if any. Meanwhile, the defendant are also restrained from selling, alloting or auctioning the above said plot of land to anyone else.