Real estate major DLF Universal, on June 9, 2017, moved the Delhi High Court against its single judge’s order, appointing a local commissioner to inspect one of its residential projects in the national capital. A bench of justices Sunil Gaur and C Hari Shankar, said it would consider DLF’s plea, claiming that it was not heard before passing of the June 2, 2017 order, appointing a local commissioner (LC) to inspect its project – DLF Capital Greens Phase II.
The real estate major said some persons, who were allotted flats in the project at Shivaji Marg near Moti Nagar metro station, had, with ‘malafide intent’, moved the high court for cancellation of the completion certificate granted to it in February 2017. It alleged that these allottees submitted old photographs of the project to the single judge, to show that the completion certificate was granted by the municipal corporation without the work being completed.
Senior advocate Abhishek M Singhvi, appearing for DLF, said the intent behind the allottees’ plea for cancelling the completion certificate, appeared to be to get the ‘delay compensation’, which would be due if the work is was completed on time and possession handed over. The lawyer placed photographs before the court, purportedly showing that the work was complete and only some finishing touches remained.
He also said that an allottee can complain about poor quality of an apartment, only after handing over of the possession, which has not yet been done. Singhvi also told the bench that while some allottees moved the high court for cancellation of the completion certificate, others have moved the National Consumer Commission, seeking possession of the apartments allotted to them. He also said that DLF was not a fly-by-night operator and therefore, there was no need for the single judge to appoint an LC without hearing it.
The single judge had asked the LC to inspect the project and submit a report by July 20, 2017. DLF has sought that the inspection be postponed by a week, so that it can file an application before the single judge or a larger bench can hear it. While the bench was of the prima facie view that there was nothing illegal about the single judge’s decision, it said it will consider the real estate major’s plea.