RSA NO. 2257 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2257 of 2007(O&M) Decided on : 27-03-2009 Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer, Jind. ....Appellant VERSUS Smt. Prem Lata ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate for the appellant Mr. V.D.Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. MAHESH GROVER, J C.M. No.6469 C of 2006 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 894 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned. C.M. No.6470-C of 2007 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 9 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. RSA No. 2257 of 2007 The defendant is in appeal challenging the order of the learned First Appellate Court dated 1.6.2004. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit alleging that she had purchased some property in open auction and had deposited 10% of the amount at the spot and then 15% as per requirement and that remaining 75% had to be paid according to the terms of the allotment. It was averred by her that the interest was to begin from the date of offer of the possession but no possession was given to her and therefore the demand of the RSA NO. 2257 of 2007(O&M) 2 remaining amount alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum is illegal so was the resumption of the plot. The appellant who contested the suit averred that they were very well within their rights to charge interest on the outstanding amount. It was pleaded that the respondent was duty bound to pay the instalments as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and that offer of possession was given to her on 15th September, 1998 and therefore no penal interest has been charged upto this date but thereafter as per the condition no.6 interest was to be charged at the rate of 10% per annum. It was further pleaded that as notice was given prior to resumption, therefore, they were within their rights to resume the property for the aforesaid reason. Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 2. Whether the jurisdiction of this Court is barred in view of Sec. 50 of HUDA Act, 1977?OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has not availed the alternative remedy as alleged in para no.2 of the preliminary objections of written statement ?OPD. 4. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD. 6. Whether the suit has been filed with the malafide intention?OPD. 7. Relief. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed. RSA NO. 2257 of 2007(O&M) 3 In appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent, the findings of the learned trial Court were reversed and it was observed that the respondent was entitled to injunction as prayed for by her and was not liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the alleged delayed payments. Assailing the aforesaid findings of the learned First Appellate Court, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the only question that arises in the present appeal is that whether appellant was entitled to charge interest at the rate of 18% per annum or not? It was pleaded that Clause 6 of the allotment letter clearly provided for levy of interest on the delayed payments and therefore, the appellant has rightly resorted to the enforcement of the said condition. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the appellant could not charge interest at the rate of 18% per annum as now it has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court that interest at best can be charged at 10% per annum. Reliance was placed on cases titled as 'HUDA versus Raj Singh Rana' 2009(1) RCR(Civil) 129 and 'Roochira Ceramics versus Haryana Urban Development Authority' 2001(2) RCR (civil) 617. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent and in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in these cases, the appellant can recover the amount alongwith simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The appeal stands dismissed with above modifications. March 27 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge