DDA pulled up for fraud,asked to refund widow

An “as is where is” agreement means one will get a property at the location where it is and in the condition it is presently in. But the court held that this does not imply innocent purchasers will end up incurring the loss of space and other features related to property even though they have been tricked into entering a purchase agreement by misrepresentation and fraud.

“In this case,the DDA has misled and induced purchasers into buying a 12.4-sq m shop by showing the same as measuring 19.27 sq m in their advertisement. This is a clear case of fraud having being played upon a prospective purchaser,who,under these circumstances,is fully justified in rescinding the agreement,” the court held in a recent order.

Dismissing the DDA’s contention regarding a physical inspection by petitioner Alka Ahuja (42),ADJ Lau said when the agency’s officials had admitted that the shop was under their lock and key,it was illogical to say she chose not to inspect the shop and was at fault for not being vigilant.

Ahuja approached the court and filed a suit of recovery against the DDA after it declined to pay back the Rs 5.2 lakh she had deposited in March 2007 as earnest money towards a shop situated at Priyadarshini Vihar,near the American Embassy.

She had sought to cancel her agreement with the DDA after noticing that while the agency’s advertisement promised a shop with an area of 19.27 sq m,the shop actually measured 12.4 sq m. The DDA’s contention that the rest of the area was marked for a courtyard and that it was normal practice to include the courtyard area in the total area while advertising,failed to impress the court.

The court cited the civic body’s own rules to point out that in several other advertisements and tenders it had placed separate columns mentioning the courtyard area. “The DDA cannot be allowed to take a stand that is contrary to its own guidelines by pleading that the area of the shop so mentioned is inclusive of the courtyard. The authority is only trying to wriggle out of a mess that is its own creation,” ADJ Lau said.

“The court cannot be a party to such a deal under any circumstances. It is obligatory for this court to protect the interests of such a purchaser who,under given circumstances,is in no position to bargain with the statutory authority,” the court observed.