ATTAUR REHMAN vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

FACTS as disclosed in the complaint are these.:- The complainant submitted an application on 4.9.73 for the. allotment of a house. The number of the application was 4872. He deposited Rs. 500/- . The opposite party informed the. complainant vide better No. H5/91/JPR/E/73/2863-65 dated 5.4.74 that his name has been registered under the category of financially weak group. The complainant alleged that the opposite party asked him for options and the complainant gave his option from time to time. The complainant submitted vide letter No. 10907 dated 15.4.75 for allotment of the house under Lal Kothi Scheme then. By letter No. 7694 dated 20.11.75 he applied for allotment of a house in Nahari-Ka-Nakha. But the house was not allotted to him. Thereafter the complainant submitted letter No. 34636 and deposited Rs. 2500/- for changing the category and sent it to the office of the opposite party. He. wrote, a letter on 2.2.82 and he informed that his name was not included in the priority list. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party informed him vide letter dated 23.3.83 that the file relating to the registration is not available in the office of the opposite party and he was asked to appear alongwith the photostat copies of the documents. The complainant deposited all the documents. Thereafter the opposite party included him name under LIG category and according to the published priority list his name, was shown as in LIG from financial point of view. Thereupon the complainant informed the opposite party that he has already got his name, changed in the income group and his name was wrongly included in the list. The. opposite party informed the complainant on 7.8.85 that he should deposit the seed money. The complainant deposited the seed money under protest. The house, which was allotted to the complainant was MIG and it is multi storeyed. According to the complainant had his name having been changed to income group, the house should have been allotted to him a single storeyed and not the multi storeyed. It is alleged that on account of the negligence of the opposite party the complainant was not able to get a single, storeyed house and he had to remain waiting for the, house and have to pay heavy amount as rent. He has stated facts relating to financial loss which suffered he has suffered in paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the complaint. He, therefore, filed the complaint before the State Commission on 19.12.90 praying for the following reliefs:- (1) that a direction be issued to the opposite party to allot him a single storeyed house measuring 25 X 50 in Malviya Nagar or at other placed where the complainant has exercised his option. (2) that RS. 29,350/- may be awarded to the complainant being the amount of rent paid by him. (3) that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- may be refunded to the complainant as in 1982-83 the cost of house was Rs. 40,000/- whereas the present cost is Rs. 90,000/- and so the difference of Rs. 50,000/- may be awarded. (4) that compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- may be awarded as the complainant was deprived of the use of the house which would have been allotted to him. (5) that a sum of Rs. 60,000/- may be awarded on account of mental tension. (6) that costs etc. may be awarded.

IN support of the complaint the complainant submitted his affidavit dated 18.12.90. Photostat copies of the documents were submitted by the complainant reference of which was made in the complaint. The opposite party filed the version of the case denying the claim of the complainant. It admitted that in 1973 a sum of Rs. 500/- was deposited on 3.9.1973 for the registration for the allotment of the house in Jaipur City. The complainant''s name was registered in MIG group on 5.4.1974. In April, 74 the complainant gave his option by the letter/Form No. 11887 for the allotment of house in Nahari-ka-Nakha Scheme measuring 20X50. Name of the complainant was included among the eligible persons and his name was also included in the lottery. But he was not declared successful. The complainant gave option in April, 75 for allotment of a house in Lal Kothi Scheme measuring 25 X 50 but the complainant was already registered under the LIG and he was not eligible for that and, therefore, his option was not accepted. Subsequently, the complainant for the draw of lottery in October, 76 gave his option for allotment of a house in Nahari-Ka-Nakha measuring 18 X 18. His name was included in the lottery but he was not declared successful. Thereafter the complainant gave option again for the allotting a house in Nahari-ka-Nakha Scheme for 20 X 37 and his name was included. But he was not successful. Having failed in so many attempts, he again gave 2 options for Malviya Nagar where the allotment was being made by drawing the lottery. The complainant was not declared successful in the lottery. It was admitted that on 30.5.79 on deposit of Rs. 1300/- and Rs. 1200/- the complainant got his name changed from LIG to MIG. So according to the opposite party the complainant was in LIG in 1979 and his name has included in MIG ''A'' in 1982. The opposite party has pleaded that of the registered applicants of 1973 priority list was prepared on 27.12.84 and before the preparation of the list houses and flats were allotted by lottery in 1973 out of whom the complainant was one. The applicants who remained thereafter their list was prepared on 27.12.84. The complainant wrote the letter, but particulars of registration were not clear and as such the complainant was asked to contact with the copies. It is said that the file of the complainant was available but as particulars of registration were not mentioned they were asked for. The story that the file was lost according to the opposite party is wrong. The name of the complainant was included in the MIG and to the complainant and other persons were allotted independent houses and flats. The opposite party produced the list for the perusal of the State Commission. According to the opposite party, the complainant was registered in 1973 in a financially weak group and on 30.5.79 as in LIG. The complainant was informed that house or flat has been reserved and that flat has been allotted to him. This information was sent through letter dated 7.6.85. Income group was changed as and when the complainant wanted. On 2.8.82 the complainant got himself registered in MIG ''A''. He was informed to deposit the seed money. By letter dated 7.6.85 the complainant was allotted a house by draw of a lottery which was independent as well as flats. According to the opposite party 431 persons were allotted flats and independent houses. It was stated that the complainant gave the option. Lotteries were drawn but he was not successful. It was submitted that it was not possible to allot the house previously. Claim for the award of rent was denied on the ground that when the complainant himself got registered in 1973 September as a financially weak person the question for granting of rent from 1971 does not arise. Increase in the cost was sought to be justified on the grounds of increase, in the cost of the material and increase in the labour charges. Under the head additional pleas it was submitted that on the basis of the judgment of the National Commission in M.M. Narsimha Reddy v. Managing Director, Maruti Udyog (Appeal No. 1976/90 decided on 20.12.90) the complainant is not entitled to file the complaint. It was stated that the complainant wanted to have an independent house which was not possible about which information was given on 20.4.1988 to the complainant. It was submitted that on account of not taking the house (flat) the opposite party was put to financial loss. Any objections of limitation, and jurisdiction were raised. It appears that on 17.9.91 a rejoinder was filed without obtaining the leave from the State Commission. With that affidavit of the complainant was also submitted. Its copy was delivered to the opposite party. In the rejoinder it was stated that deliberately the file was lost for 10 years and his name was not included while drawing the lottery. As the name of the complainant was not included amongst the eligible or non-eligible candidates, the complainant informed the opposite party on which he was intimated that no record of registration is available and he was asked to produce the documents. Thereafter the complainant submitted the documents to the opposite party.

On behalf of the opposite party Shri Nand Lai Shanna submitted affidavit and a priority list of the applicants of 1973 (General) which contains that the lottery was drawn on 27.12.84 and the category was MIG ''A''.

WE heard Mr. Prem Surana, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. M.L. Vyas, Advocate for the opposite party. The objections which the complainant has raised in the complaint were raised before us in several cases and they were considered in Kanhaiyalal Mathur v. Housing Board 90 RLT Part-III 31. and subsequent decisions. It was observed in Kanhaiyalal ''s case (supra) as under: "Before we proceed further, it may be mentioned that in Jyoti prakash v. The Rajasthan Housing Board (1979 WLN (UC) 101), it has been held that the Registration schemes and the Allotment Schemes are distinguishable and no right of allotment of house is conferred on any applicants registered under the scheme. It was held in 1985 W.L.N. (UC) 266 by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court that the Board is competent to increase the price beyond ceiling in certain circumstances and one is increase in the cost of construction. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1625/86 Deep Chand v. Rajasthan Housing Board decided on 24.9.86 the Registration Scheme 1979 was considered. It was held that the reservation is after only allotment and registration and reservations cannot be equated. No right accrued to the complainant for the allotment of the house by Housing Board Scheme, July September, 1973."

It was affirmed in Kanhasiyalal Mathur v. R.H.B. I (1991) CPJ 37 (NC)=1991 CSMR CAS 116. observed : "As has been pointed out by the State Commission the allotment scheme has to be distinguished from the registration scheme and no right of allotment to a house is conferred on any applicant by mere registration under a registration scheme. Registration and reservation of allotment cannot be equated and reservation of accommodation follows allotment. Consequently, the State Commission has rightly observed that no right accrued to the complainant for the allotment of a house by the Housing Board on registration of the appellant in 1973 at. seq. in the various draws made under the registration allotment schemes introduced from time to the name of the appellant did not figure in the draws made for allotment. There was no contractual obligation on the part of the Board to allot a house to the appellant."

THE Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writs Petition No.1: 451/1987 decided on 16.7.87 rules as under:- "A number of petitions of a similar nature, have came up before this Court, and this Court came to the conclusion that mere registration does not entitle the applicant to get the house allotted at a price mentioned in the booklet. THE allotment of the house to be at the price when the house is allotted, it is well known that the is escalation of the prices and the price of the house which would have been in the year 1981 when the registration was held out cannot be the same in the year 1985-86. THE petitioner cannot be said to have been given any assurance that the house shall be allotted to him at a price of Rs. 1,11,900/- which was mentioned in the booklet in the year 1981. THE decline of promissory estoppel is hardly attracted in the present case as no assurance can be said to have been given that the house shall be allotted to him at a price of Rs. 1,11,900/- .

It was held in AIR 1980 SC 738. that the petitioners grievance that the authority was not entitled to give discriminatory treatment by collecting surcharge as component of price in sale of flats constructed under the MIG scheme. It was further held that the State, had its agency entering into contractual field then the relation are not governe by the constitutional provisions and no question arises of violation of the constitutional provisions including Art. 14. Reference may be made to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No:1621/86 decided by the Rajasthan High Court on 24.9.86. It was observed: "Mr. Sharma has submitted before me the Housing Board Registration Scheme, 1979. In that very clause it has been mentioned that as far as practicable the rates shall not be changed after reservation. The reservation is after only allotment; registration and reservation cannot be equated. This very rule provides that the rates can be revised looking to the increase in the costs. Mr. Sharma submits that it can be raised only upto 10 percent. It is true that prices have not increased after reservation but after registration. In the registration estimated costs is given and the increasing cost cannot be over looked. There is no case of hostile discrimination and the persons allotted have been treated equally and on the same amount. Even if there is a dispute about the increased rate, it can be agitated before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction where the disputed question of facts can be determined, such as, what is the increase has rightly been assessed or not and if assessed, whether it has rightly been applied or not, can only be considered by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction as in such case the disputed questions of facts are involved."

Having considered the documents, the complaint and the version of the case, we are unable to hold that the allotment to the complainant was considerably delayed because of the negligence on the part of the opposite party. After exercising option by the complainant, his name was included in the list of the eligible, applicants and lottery was drawn out unfortunately on the various occasions he was not declared successful and for that the blame cannot be fastened on the. opposite party. As regards the area of the house, or the rise, in the, cost of construction it is abundantly clear from the decisions of the State Commission as well as of Rajasthan High Court that this was permissible. Apart from that as observed by the National Commission "there was no contractual obligation on the part of the Board to allot a house to the appellant". This goes a long way to say that even a registered applicant for whom the house has been reserved there is no obligation to allot a house, what to speak of an independent house as claimed by the complainant. In view of the principles laid down in the decisions referred to hereinabove the complainant cannot insist that he should be allotted a house, for which he has given his option. The cost of the house is to be determined at the time of allotment and the opposite party is fully entitled to recover that cost. The complainant cannot be given relief of the rent amounting to Rs. 29,350/- or the amount on the ground that he was deprived of the use of the house amounting to Rs. 40,000/- . It needs to be mentioned here that no evidence whatsoever has been placed on record to substantiate his claim made in para (Kha and Gha) as we have come to the conclusion that there was no negligence on the, part of the, opposite party. He is not entitled to any compensation or for a direction that a sum of Rs. 60,000/- may be adjusted against the cost of the house. The reliefs which the complainant has claimed cannot be granted under Sec. 14 (1) of the Act.

THE complaint shall stand dismissed. No costs. Complaint dismissed.