W.P(C) 2667/2008 Page 1 of 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 2667/2008 Reserved on : 11th May, 2010 Pronounced on: 14th May, 2010 BRIJ NATH SINGH ...... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate VERSUS ORDINANCE COOP. G/H SOCIETY LTD. & OTHERS ....Respondents Through: Mr. J.N.Gupta, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? % JUDGMENT VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the order dated 24.8.2007 passed by the W.P(C) 2667/2008 Page 2 of 6 Delhi Cooperative Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the Award dated 5.6.2006 passed by the Arbitrator. The Delhi Co operative Tribunal however granted relief to the petitioner to the extent of reduction of interest from 18% to 15.5% in repayment of loan to the Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation (for short „DCHFC‟). 2. The disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 society, with respect to a demand raised by the society upon the petitioner which was as under:- “1.Quarterly loan installments incl. Penal as per DCHFC schedule (statement attached). Rs.9,01,730 2. Balance Construction Money Rs.1,35,750 3. Intt. @18% w.e.f. March, 93 to May 04 as per GB Resolution (statement attached) Rs.2,74,894 4. Other Charges incl. Intt. (DDA Penalty+ Road Lease/Insurance, etc. (Statement attached) Rs. 26,845 5. Maintenance Charges from 1990-91 To June 04 incl. Interest (Statement attached) Rs. 71,882 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Total amount to be payable Rs.14,11,101” 3. The Arbitrator awarded the following amounts in favour of the society. W.P(C) 2667/2008 Page 3 of 6 “1. Quarterly Loan installments Rs.9,27,930/- including penal interest as per DCHFC. 2. Balance Construction Money Rs.1,35,750/- 3. Interest @ 18% Rs.3,19,691/- 4. Other Charges Rs. 31,983/- 5. Costs Rs.1,20,000/- 6. Less amount in the award Dated 28/12/90 -(Rs.78,548) 7. Total Rs.14,24,823/- With further interest at 18% until the realization in full the principal amount.” As already stated, by the impugned order, the rate of interest as awarded by the Arbitrator, being interest payable to DCHFC was reduced to 15.5% i.e the same rate as was payable to DCHFC. 4. A reading of the facts of the case and the impugned order shows that it cannot be disputed that loan was taken by the society from DCHFC prorata repayable by each flat owner including against the subject flat which has been allotted to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is bound to pay the loan amount with interest as claimed by DCHFC. As already noted above, the petitioner has already got the benefit in the impugned order of the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal which has reduced the rate of interest as awarded by the Arbitrator. The petitioner is also surely liable to pay the balance construction W.P(C) 2667/2008 Page 4 of 6 money. A member who is allotted a flat cannot dispute payment of the balance construction money. 5. The last head of charges awarded by the Arbitrator, claim of which was upheld by the Tribunal of Rs.31,983/-, are basically the proportionate charges payable by each flat owner towards DDA penalty, insurance charges etc. No fault can be found even with regard to this finding because each member is liable to pay these actual costs incurred by the society proportionately. So far as the maintenance charges are concerned, the counsel for the respondent has made a statement during the course of hearing that the claim of maintenance charges has been withdrawn and would be payable by the petitioner only from the date the petitioner was granted possession of the flat. 6. That leaves us only with the issue with regard to interest which is payable with respect to the balance cost of construction not paid and which has been awarded at the rate of 18% per annum by both the authorities below. We feel that in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice this rate of interest should be reduced to 12% per annum from 18% per annum, although the society has charged interest at 18% from other members. This reduction which we are giving is because the petitioner did not have the benefit of the possession of the flat without any fault of his own, though of course it must also be stated that it was strictly not because of the society either because there was W.P(C) 2667/2008 Page 5 of 6 an issue of the petitioners disentitlement on account of his owning a property in Delhi. However, we must note the fairness of the counsel for the society who said that the society will abide by any orders with respect to rate of interest awarded by this court. 7. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that he is not liable to pay all the charges as aforesaid. We find the arguments to be wholly devoid of merits because surely the charges whether towards the loan of DCHFC with interest claimed by DCHFC, common charges to be proportionately paid by the member, balance cost of construction so far as the flat allotted to the petitioner with reasonable interest thereon are not such which can be in any manner disputed by the petitioner. In fact, we find that the petitioner is deliberately seeking to unnecessary litigate although he is liable to pay the charges and the society has been more than fair in not only waiving the maintenance charges but also agreeing to reduce the rate of interest payable on the balance cost of construction. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find the present case to be a fit case for our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the two concurrent orders of the Arbitrator and the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, inasmuch as there is no illegality or gross perversity in the orders of both the authorities below. W.P(C) 2667/2008 Page 6 of 6 9. The petition is therefore dismissed except giving benefit to the petitioner to the extent of reduction of interest as stated in para 6 above. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. CM No. 5111/2008 (Stay) in W.P.(C) No. 2667/2008 Application does not survive for consideration and is disposed of. VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J May 14 , 2010 ib