Choice Of Allottee Cannot Be Made Subject To Counter Offer By Developer: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the exercise of discretion/choice by an allottee cannot be made subject to a counter offer made by the developer and such counter offer cannot be accepted in law to give rise to a binding obligation to seek allotment.
The Court said that the renewed offer has to be seen in the law of contract as a fresh counter offer to which acceptance is a prerequisite to create any obligation.
The bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj observed, “I am of the opinion that exercise of discretion/choice by an allottee cannot be made subject to a counter offer made by the developer and such counter offer cannot be accepted in law to give rise to a binding obligation on the applicant to seek such an allotment.”
Advocate C.K. Singla appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Malvika Singh appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Petitioner booked a residential plot in a project developed by respondents and deposited a certain amount. The respondents offered an alternate plot or an adjustment in another project after no development on the earlier site. The Petitioner sought a refund or possession because of which a dispute was filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat which directed the respondents to allow the Petitioner to choose a plot from the available plots of the same size in the same location at the initially agreed price. Dissatisfied with the order the petitioner filed the current Writ Petition.
According to the Court, the core controversy is only as to whether an allottee can exercise his option not to seek an alternate plot and instead seek a refund of the money deposited by him.
The Court said that an allottee/applicant cannot be compelled to seek any other plot as the same would be like a novation of the contract.
“The willingness of one cannot be thrust upon the other.”, the Court added.
The Court noted that even after more than a decade, the actual physical possession of the plot has not been given to the petitioner. “The fate of the applicant cannot be kept under suspension indefinitely and merely for the convenience of the developer.”, the Court said.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition.
