1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3243 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.3.2009 *** The Chief Administrator, HUDA & Anr. .. Appellants VS. Naresh Kumar. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate and Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. Delay of 86 days in re-filing the present appeal stands condoned. Notice of motion. Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate, who is present in Court accepts notice. After having lost concurrently before the two Courts below, the defendant-appellants have preferred the instant regular second appeal and has laid challenge to the judgments passed by both the courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper book carefully. The plaintiff-respondent purchased the shop in dispute from the appellants on 10.3.1997 for an amount of Rs.11,10,000/-, which was subsequently resumed by the appellants on account of non-payment of 2 balance sale consideration. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the competent authority against the resumption order dated 11.4.2001, which was dismissed, leading to the institution of the suit by the plaintiff against the action of the defendants of resuming of the plot as also of claiming compound interest @ 18% on the delayed payment of installments. As per condition of the allotment letter, the plaintiff was to deposit 15% of the sale amount within 30 days of allotment taking the total to 25% (since 10% was initially deposited at the time of bid) and then the possession was to be delivered to the purchaser and the remaining 75% was to be deposited in 10 half yearly installments alongwith interest @ 15% per annum. There is no dispute to the fact that the plaintiff deposited 25% of the sale amount, as required, within the prescribed period and as per stipulation he was entitled to get possession of the shop in dispute, but there is nothing on record to show that the defendant-appellants ever handed over the possession of the said shop to him, although numerous correspondences were proved on record, made by the plaintiff, asking the appellants to deliver the possession of the shop to him. Rather, the appellants, without delivering the possession started claiming amount from the plaintiff by calculating and charging compound interest @ 18%. Thus, it has been concurrently held that it were the appellants who did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the allotment letter by not handing over the possession of the shop to the plaintiff and started claiming the balance amount from him by adding compound interest @ 18% by asserting that the possession will be delivered on payment of entire sale condition, as apparent from Ex.P19 which was not acceptable to the plaintiff and thus, it has been held that the action of defendants in charging compound interest that too at the rate of 3 18% and without handing over the possession as also the resumption order dated 11.4.2001 and consequent proceedings thereto are illegal and accordingly set aside. The suit was decreed holding that the defendant- appellants could charge simple charge interest @ 15% per annum, as agreed, only after the possession is delivered to the plaintiff and then he commits any default in making the payment of installments and directed them to deliver the possession of the shop within one month. That apart to put to an end the litigation between the parties as to the providing of civil amenities/ development work at the site, the learned trial court rightly left open to the plaintiff to exercise his option for cancellation of bid of the shop in dispute with refund of his amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. There is no illegality and perversity in the findings returned by the Courts below. I do not find any question of law which require determination by this Court, in the instant appeal. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. No interference is called for. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 19,2009 Jiten