A.P.HOUSING BOARD vs IMMIDISETTY SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO

THE District Forum, East Godavari sitting at Rajahmundry passed a common order in C.Ds. 777/92 and CD 273/93 etc., directing the opposite parties i.e. A.P. Housing Board and also Regional Housing Engineer, Housing Board, Tadepalligudem to deliver possession of the house against plot No. 84 to the complainant and to pay interest @ 15% p.a. on Rs. 1,05,000/- from the date of payment of Rs. 5,000/- till actual delivery of possession of the house to the complainant in CD 777/92 and also pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 100/- towards costs and in other C.Ds. directed the opposite not to collect any more amount than Rs. 1,05,000/- till the final cost of the building is arrived at.

AGGRIEVED by the order passed in CD 777/92, the opposite parties preferred this appeal. The District Forum held that there is no reason to deliver possession of the house to the complainant in CD 777/92 on payment of Rs. 1,05,000/- when it actually delivered possession to other complainant who paid only a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/-. It is therefore held that as the opposite parties failed to deliver possession on payment of Rs. 1,05,000/- and the complainant in CD 777/92 is entitled to compensation by way of interest @ 15% p.a.

In this appeal preferred by the opposite parties, the only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the complainant in CD 777/92 is not entitled for payment of any interest. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the Housing Board served notices on 3.2.1992 requesting the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 1,22,000/- and to take possession of the house. But the complainant paid only a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- by 25.6.1992. According to Self Financing Housing Scheme Regulations, 1975, on payment of the difference if any between the estimated cost and final cost, the possession of the flat shall be given to the allottee. It is therefore contended that since the complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 1,22,000/- as evidenced by notices dated 3.2.1992 and 29.3.1992, it cannot be said that there is any delay on the part of the opposite parties in delivering possession of the flat to the complainant and hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay any interest for the delayed period. But the District Forum found that with regard to some other allottees who paid only Rs. 1,05,000/- the opposite parties delivered possession of the house and hence the refusal of the opposite parties to deliver possession of the house to the complainant in CD 777/92 on payment of Rs. 1,05,000/- is arbitrary and unjustified.

BEFORE the District Forum, the complainant filed affidavits of two third parties who were allotted houses and to whom the possession was delivered after payment of Rs, 1 lakh on 5.9.1991. One such affidavit is that of B.V. Gorinadham, allottee of house bearing No. SFS 15. The other affidavit is that of Ch. S.R.C. Narasimha Rao who was allotted house bearing No. SFS 10 and who was delivered possession of the house after payment of Rs. 1 lakh on 16.6.1991. Form No. 6 filed alongwith third party affidavits shows that the opposite parties on 19.3.91 and 7.6.91 handed over possession of the house numbers mentioned above to the allottees whose affidavits are filed. Even according to the opposite parties, the complainant in CD777/92 paid Rs.1,05,000/- on 25.6.1992. We are therefore of the view that the complainant is entitled for payment of interest on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- from 25.6.92 till the date of delivery of possession. It is next submitted that the complainant was staying in a rented house by paying Rs. 500/- per month and that he is not entitled for payment of something more than that. We are not inclined to agree with this contention. Since the possession of the house was not delivered to the complainant inspite of paying Rs.1,05,000/- and as the House Board delivered possession of the house to the allottees similarly situated to that of the complainant in CD 777/92 we are satisfied that the complainant is entitled for payment of interest. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances of the case and according to the regulations of the Housing Board, the Board is entitled to demand final cost before delivery of the possession, we consider it appropriate to reduce the rate of interest from 15% to 12% p.a.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the opposite parties are directed to deliver possession of the house to the complainant and pay interest on Rs. 1,05,000/- @ 12% p.a. from 25.6.1992 till the date of delivery of possession. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.