Lease scheme amenities are statutory duties, but they do not suspend instalment liability; limited relief may apply to penal dues.

Under the lease-and-development scheme, the authority's duty to provide basic amenities was a statutory obligation, but it did not make prior provision of all amenities a condition precedent to the allottee's liability to pay premium, interest, ground rent or instalments. Non-provision of full development could not be used as a complete defence to those dues. At the same time, where essential facilities such as roads, drainage, sewerage, drinking water or street lighting were lacking, case-specific relief could be examined only for penalty and penal interest, with instalment liability remaining unaffected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provision of basic amenities under the statutory scheme was a condition precedent to the allottee's liability to pay premium, interest, ground rent and penalty. (ii) Whether, even if the amenities were not a condition precedent, the allottees could seek proportionate relief against interest and penalty where some facilities had not been provided.

Issue (i): Whether the provision of basic amenities under the statutory scheme was a condition precedent to the allottee's liability to pay premium, interest, ground rent and penalty.

Analysis: The statutory definition of "amenity" and the lease rules imposed an obligation on the Administration to provide civic facilities, but the scheme did not make prior provision of all such amenities a contractual or statutory condition precedent for payment of the balance premium, interest or ground rent. The allotment and lease terms required payment in instalments with interest, and the mere absence of full development could not be used to avoid those obligations. The expressions relied upon by the allottees, including "enjoy" in the rules and general notions of legitimate expectation, did not override the clear structure of the lease and the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The amenities were not a condition precedent, and the allottees could not refuse payment of premium, interest or ground rent on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether, even if the amenities were not a condition precedent, the allottees could seek proportionate relief against interest and penalty where some facilities had not been provided.

Analysis: Although the Administration's duty to provide amenities remained, the proper approach was not to treat non-provision as a complete defence. Instead, the factual position in each case had to be examined to see whether basic facilities such as road, drainage, sewerage, drinking water and street lighting were lacking. Relief, if any, was confined to the consequences flowing from that shortfall, particularly the penalty and penal interest components, and not to the instalment liability itself. The matters therefore required individual reconsideration by the High Court on the factual extent of amenities actually provided.

Conclusion: Proportionate relief could be considered case by case only in relation to penalty and penal interest, while instalment liability remained unaffected.

Final Conclusion: The earlier view treating amenities as a condition precedent was rejected, the common matters were sent back for individualized factual examination, and only limited relief could be worked out depending on the extent of amenities actually provided.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the lease-and-development scheme, the authority's obligation to provide amenities is enforceable as a statutory duty, but it does not suspend or condition the allottee's contractual liability to pay instalments and related dues; only case-specific relief from penal consequences may follow if essential amenities were not provided.

---