ASSTT. HOUSING OFFICER, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD vs VINAY MOHAN MITTAL

BOTH appeal Nos. 1259/94 & 2141/94 will be decided by this common order as they arise from the same order of District Forum, Jaipur dated 10.3.93 passed in Complaint Case No. 520/ 92 filed by the complainant Vinay Mohan Mittal in District Forum, Jaipur. Facts of the case are that the complainant Vinay Mohan Mittal had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as registration charges by a demand draft dated 24.1.80 and had made an Application No. 19886 to the Rajasthan Housing Board for allotment to him of a MIG Category ''A'' house in Jaipur. On account of change in the income category of the complainant, he further deposited a registration amount of Rs. 1,600/- on 15.6.82 for MIG Category ''B'' house and intimation of the same was given to the Board.

THEREAFTER on 20.9.89 the complainant made an Application No. 5291 to the Rajasthan Housing Board for registering him for MIG Category ''B'' house under Parijat Scheme, 1988 of the Board. For getting himself registered under Parijat Scheme, the complainant further deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as registration charges on 23.9.89 vide Challan No. 5291 dated 20.9.89. In his application for registration under Parijat Scheme, in column No. 9, the complainant had given his priority for the house to be allotted to him in Jaipur. His first three priorities were respectively flats in ground floor, first floor and second floor in Jawahar Nagar Flats, Jaipur. His fourth priority was ground floor flat in Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. His fifth priority was independent house in Mansarovar, Jaipur. He had not given any priority to house in Sanganer. However, on 14.12.90 the complainant made an application to the Asstt. Housing Officer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur mentioning therein that he had applied for registration for a house on 20.9.89 under Parijat Scheme, but the registration was not so far issued. He requested for issue of the registration in Parijat Scheme. By this letter-dated 14.12.90, the complainant also mentioned that he is giving his option for an independent house of MIG ''B'' Category in Sanganer Scheme. The complainant further mentioned in the application that as he had deposited the registration amountunder Parijat Scheme in the third quarter of the year 1989, cost of the house may be charged which was relevant to the third quarter of the year 1989. As the complainant did not receive intimation from the Housing Board regarding his registration under Parijat Scheme, he filed a Complaint Case No. 298/91 in District Forum, Bikaner praying that the Rajasthan Housing Board may be directed to register the complainant under Parijat Scheme and to allot to him house under that scheme as per the cost in the third quarter of the year 1989. In that Complaint Case No. 298/91, the opposite party raised a preliminary objection that the District Forum, Bikaner had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The District Forum, Bikaner by its order dated 10.4.92 held that the opposite party had its office at Jaipur and no part of the cause of action accrued at Bikaner and, therefore, the District Forum, Bikaner did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide Complaint Case No. 298/91. The District Forum, Bikaner, therefore, ordered for return of the complaint case to the complainant on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. THEREAFTER the complainant filed Complaint Case No. 520/92 in District Forum, Jaipur. In this complaint case the complainant made the same prayer that the opposite parties may be directed to register the complainant under Parijat Scheme and to allot to him house under the said scheme as per the cost applicable in the third quarter of the year 1989. In his complaint the complainant alleged that the Rajasthan Housing Board by its letter dated 5.9.90 intimated to the complainant that under his registration application No. 19886, he has been registered for MIG Category ''B'' house under General Registration Scheme and that he may deposit the prescribed amount. The complainant stated that despite the fact that he had made application on 20.9.89 for registration under Parijat Scheme and had deposited the registration amount of Rs. 10,000/-, the opposite parties made reservation of the house for the complainant under General Registration Scheme.

We have already stated that Complaint Case No. 520/92 was filed by the complainant in District Forum, Jaipur on 24.4.92. In this complaint case the opposite parties were served and appearance had been made on their behalf on 17.6.92 before the District Forum, Jaipur. The opposite parties filed their version before the District Forum, Jaipur on 18.8.92. In their version the opposite parties admitted that the complainant had initially made Application No. 19886 for registration of MIG Category ''A'' house on 30.1.80 after depositing the registration amount of Rs. 3,000/- and that later on due to increase in his monthly income, the complainant further deposited Rs. 1,600/- for MIG Category ''B'' house and also on 20.9.89 the complainant applied for registration under Parijat Scheme after depositing Rs. 10.000/- as registration amount. The opposite parties stated that no loss occurred to the complainant by the issue of reservation letter on 5.9.90 under General Registration because both the options remained open to the complainant to get a house either under the General Registration or under Parijat Scheme. We may state here that Parijat Scheme is a self-financing scheme and under this scheme house is allotted to the registered applicant and its possession is delivered within two years. The opposite parties further pleaded that the complainant by writing letter to the opposite parties had waived his rights and he had not written that house may be allotted to him only in Sanganer Scheme. The opposite parties also pleaded that on 17.8.92 a reservation letter has been issued by the Housing Board to the complainant under Parijat Scheme and cost of the house in that reservation latter has been mentioned as was in force in the year 1990.

THE reservation letter dated 17.8.92 was issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board to the complainant after about four months of the filing of the complaint by the complainant in District Forum, Jaipur on 24.4.92. We have seen the original file of the Rajasthan Housing Board relating to the complainant with regard to his registration under Parijat Scheme. In this file we find a reservation letter issued to the complainant on 17.8.92 reserving a MIG Category ''B'' house in favour of the complainant in Sanganer Scheme. By this reservation letter, the complainant has been required to deposit the estimated cost of the house, namely Rs. 2,80,000/- by four instalments of Rs. 70,000/- each. THE instalments were required to be deposited respectively by 30.9.92, 30.12.92, 30.4.93 and 30.7.93. In the amount of the first instalment adjustment of Rs. 16,000/-, already deposited by the complainant as registration charges, had been allowed. The complainant''s prayer in his complaint was that house should be allotted to him in Parijat Scheme and the cost should be charged from him which was in force in the third quarter of the year 1989 i.e. on the date when he had made application for registration under the said scheme. As already stated, version of the opposite parties was that the complainant had written a letter to the Board in the year 1990 and reservation letter was issued in favour of the complainant on 17.8.92 and it was issued on the basis of the cost of the house in force in the year 1990. When this aspect of the matter was considered by the District Forum, Jaipur, it appears that during the course of arguments, representative, who was appearing for the Rajasthan Housing Board, urged before the District Forum, Jaipur that in the version, it was on account of typing mistake that it had been typed that the reservation letter had been issued on the basis of the cost as was in force in the year 1990, but in reality in the reservation letter cost which was relevant in the third quarter of 1989 had been mentioned. The District Forum, Jaipur observed that there was no reason to disbelieve what had been urged by the representative of the Housing Board before the District Forum. Due to this reason the District Forum, Jaipur did not allow the complainant the relief claimed by him that the reservation should be made as per the cost of the house in third quarter of the year 1989. However, since the reservation letter was issued by the Housing Board on 17.8.92 i.e. about four months after the filing of the complaint by the complainant, the District Forum ordered that the instalments which were made payable by 30.9.92 and 30.12.92 would now be paid by the complainant by 30.4.93 and the opposite parties would not charge interest from the complainant for the delay in payment of the first two instalments by the complainant.

HAVING gone through the evidence adduced in the case as well as original file of the complainant maintained by the Rajasthan Housing Board, we are of very clear view that the representation made by the representative of the Rajasthan Housing Board before the District Forum, Jaipur that in the version it was on account of typing error that it was typed that the cost of the house mentioned in the reservation letter was of the year 1990 and that in fact it was the cost which was in force in the third quarter of the year 1989, was totally a false representation and the District Forum, Jaipur should not have so easily believed the false representation of the representative of the Rajasthan Housing Board. In the version filed by the opposite parties, in Clause (x) of the additional pleas, it was clearly stated by the opposite parties that the complainant had written a letter to the Housing Board in the year 1990 and, therefore, in the reservation letter dated 17.8.92, the cost of the house was mentioned on the basis of the cost which was in force in the year 1990. That was in fact the correct stand as had been put forward by the opposite parties in their version. The opposite parties had not mentioned in the reservation letter dated 17.8.92, the cost of the house, which was in force in the third quarter of the year 1989. They had mentioned the cost as was in force in the year 1990. The question for determination, therefore, remains whether the complainant should have been charged cost in the reservation letter which was in force in the third quarter of the year 1989. It has already been stated that the complainant had applied for registration under Parijat Scheme in the third quarter of the year 1989 i.e. on 20.9.89. It is true that as per Clause 6 of the Parijat Scheme floated by the Rajasthan Housing Board, the registration under the said scheme remains open throughout the year and determination of the cost of the house is made in relation to each quarter. It is also provided in the said clause that the applicant would be charged that cost of the house which was relevant or had been determined in relation to the quarter in which the applicant made application for registration under Parijat Scheme. However, one important fact has to kept in mind that when the complainant made application for registration under Parijat Scheme on 20.9.89, he had given his priority for flats in Jawahar Nagar and fourth priority in relation to flats in Malviya Nagar and the last priority in Mansarovar, Jaipur. With respect to Sanganer the complainant mentioned in his application that he is not giving any priority for a house in Sanganer. Thus it was only in Jawahar Nagar, Malviya Nagar and Mansarovar that the complainant had applied on 20.9.89 for registration under Parijat Scheme. The fact was that it was on 14.12.90 that the complainant made an application to the Asstt. Housing Officer of the Board wherein he mentioned for the first time that he is giving an option for MIG ''B'' Category independent house in Sanganer Scheme. In view of this application dated 14.12.90 made by the complainant, it shall be deemed that he applied for MIG ''B'' Category house in Sanganer Scheme under Parijat Scheme only on 14.12.90 and not earlier than that. The Rajasthan Housing Board in these circumstances correctly mentioned the cost of me house in the reservation letter dated 17.8.92 which was in force in the year 1990 when the complainant made the application for house in Sanganer Scheme for the first time. In view of this change made by the complainant himself by application dated 14.12.90, the complainant cannot now contend that cost of the house which was in force in the third quarter of the year 1989 should have been charged in the reservation letter. The complainant''s case would have force in it if he would have continued his option and priority for Jawahar Nagar flats, Malviya Nagar flats or Mansarovar. But the complainant himself gave up his priority as mentioned with regard to the locality and scheme in his application dated 20.9.90 and this change was made by the complainant on 14.12.90 for a house in Sanganer Scheme which was a different scheme of the Housing Board than the other places for which the complainant had given his preferences in the application for registration. We cannot, therefore, direct the opposite parties to mention in the reservation letter the cost of the house of MIG ''B'' Category which had been determined by the Board in relation to third quarter of the year 1989. As already stated the District Forum, Jaipur has by its order under appeal allowed the complainant to pay the first and second instalments of the amounts mentioned in the reservation letter by 30.4.93 without liability to pay interest. This order is correct for the reason that despite the fact that the complainant had applied on 14.12.90 for reserving house of MIG ''B'' Category for him in Sanganer Scheme, the Housing Board did not issue the reservation letter within a reasonable time after the above application, but issued the reservation letter after about one year and eight months of the letter dated 14.12.90 and after about four months of the filing of the complaint by the complainant in District Forum, Jaipur. The reservation letter dated 17.8.92 was thus issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board during the pendency of Complaint Case No. 520/92 filed by the complainant before the District Forum, Jaipur. In such circumstances, the District Forum, Jaipur was right in postponing die date of deposit of first and second instalments without charging interest from the complainant upto 30.4.93. In view of this finding. Appeal No. 1259/94 filed by the opposite parties has no force in it and it is hereby dismissed.

SO far as Appeal No. 2141/94 filed by the complainant is concerned, we may state that the District Forum, Jaipur had decided Complaint Case No. 520/92 on 10.3.93. The complainant had obtained certified copy of the order from the District Forum on 22.3.93, but he filed the said appeal in this State Commission on 17.11.93 i.e. 221 days after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing of the appeal. Firstly, therefore, the appeal filed by the complainant deserves to be dismissed on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It may then be stated that it appears that the complainant had filed a review application before the District Forum, Jaipur on 8.4.93 and this review petition was dismissed on the ground that the review petition was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This conclusion of the District Forum, Jaipur is correct that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for review petition. Lastly, we have already come to the conclusion that the Rajasthan Housing Board was entitled to charge in the reservation letter the cost of the house which had been determined in relation to the last quarter of the year 1990 for the reason that for the first time it was on 14.12.90 that the complainant had given his option for a house in Sanganer Scheme under Parijat Scheme and, therefore, he was correctly charged the cost which was in force in the last quarter of the year 1990 and not the cost which had been determined in relation to third quarter of the year 1989 when the complainant had not applied for a house in Sanganer Scheme, but had applied for a house in Jawahar Nagar, Malviya Nagar and Mansarovar. Consequently in any view of the matter, therefore, Appeal No. 2141/94 filed by the complainant fails and is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs of the said appeals.

CERTIFIED copy of the order will be sent to the parties by post at the expense of the State Commission. Appeals dismissed. ______________