Gayatri Devi vs Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi and anr.

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner got possession of the M.I.G House No. R-31 at Hirapur, Dhanbad from the Bihar State Housing Board vide allotment letter at Annexure-1 dated 27.12.1995 containing the terms and conditions of the payment of the premium and the instalments including interest compounded @ 13.25% and in case of default in making the payments beyond the 7th day of every month additional 2.5% penal interest. The total value of the house calculated on the date of allotment was Rs.1,85,815/-, out of which Rs.55,805/- was deposited by the petitioner and the rest Rs.1,30,010/- was to be deposited in 120 instalments. Clause 5 of the allotment letter is quoted herein below:-

"5- 40@30 pkyhl@rhl izfr''kr jkf''k vFkkZr~ 55,805=00 dk lek;kstu edku@QySV dh varfje dher 1]85]815@ and :i;s esa djus ds i''pkr~ ''ks"k jkf''k 1]30]010@ and :i;s dk Hkqxrku 120 la[;k leku ekfld fdLrksa esa fuEu izdkj ls djuk gksxkA fdLrksa dk Hkqxrku Qjojh 1996 ekg ls izkjEHk gksxk A

d and eghus dh lkroh frfFk ds iwoZ Hkqxrku djus ij 13.25 % izfr''kr pdzo`f) C;kt lfgr 1960=40 :i;sA

[k and eghus dh lkroh frfFk ds ckn Hkqxrku djus ij 2-5 izfr''kr naM C;kt lfgr vFkkZr 15.75 % izfr''kr lwn lfgr 2,157=65 :i;sA vkoaVh dks foyEc ls Hkqxrku djus ij cksMZ }kjk fu/kkZfjr vU; foyEc ''kqYd Hkh nsuk gksxkA vkoaVh ;fn pkgsa rks ,d eqLr esa vfxze fdLrksa dh vnk;xh Hkh dj ldrs gSA ,slk djus ij mUgsa HkkM+k and lg and dz; dh ''ks"k vof/k ds fy;s lwn dk Hkqxrku ugha djuk gksxkA"

Petitioner, thereafter has entered into hire purchase agreement with the respondent- Board on 4.4.1996, registered on 9.4.1996 vide Annexure-2. The hire purchase agreement contained the terms and conditions including the instalments payable by the petitioner per month of Rs.2157.55/-. If the instalment was paid within the 7th day of the calender month, petitioner would get a rebate in payment of such instalment, which would come to Rs.1960.40/-. Clause 8, which has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the levy of interest @ 1% for the default of all dues either in respect of premium instalments or rent of the period of defaults. Administrative and financial charges would be levied as per clause 8A at Rs.10/- per default.

The Housing Board issued a letter at Annexure-6 dated 7.10.2010 to the petitioner for payment of the outstanding principal amount and interest calculated there upon. As per the calculation of the respondent- Board, a computation chart of which were enclosed to the said letter at Annexure-6( though not enclosed in the writ petition), as on 30.9.2010 an amount of Rs. 7,89,189/- and on 31.10.2010 an amount of Rs. 7,98,898/- was found to be due against the petitioner. Petitioner was asked to deposit the amount as per the schedule so that action can be taken in that regard, failing which, the amount outstanding would increase, to which petitioner would be liable to pay. This letter has been impugned though computation chart has not been enclosed thereto. It is being assailed on the ground that it is contrary to the express terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the computation chart prepared by the petitioner at page-48 onwards enclosed to her representation to the Managing Director of the respondent-Board sent through speed post on 15.12.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken pains to bring home the point that petitioner has been diligent in making payment and more than one instalments of every calender month had been paid in lump sum after regular interval. From the computation chart furnished by the petitioner herself, she has tried to demonstrate that respondent-Board has not prepared the outstanding amount of principal along with interest in terms of the provisions of agreement entailing levy of compound rate of interest and other penal interest and administrative charges though petitioner has been diligent in making payment.

Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the specific terms and conditions of the allotment letter, specifically clause-5 quoted herein above as also terms and conditions of hire purchase agreement, specifically clause-8 and 24 to advance his submission that petitioner on the one hand has been in default in making payment of monthly instalment as evident from her own computation chart enclosed at page-48 onwards, while on the other hand terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the agreement stipulate levy of compound interest @ 2.5 % above the compoundable interest of 13.25 % which form the part of the instalment fixed at the time of allotment of the house to the petitioner keeping into account financial liabilities being incurred by the respondent-Board from the financial institution to whom it has to repay the loan undertaken for execution of such housing project under the provisions of Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000. It is submitted that the petitioner is bearing mistaken impression that default in individual calender months and payment in lump sum at one go after few months would not entail any imposition of compound interest beyond the monthly instalment of Rs. 2157.55/- fixed by the allotment letter and as per the hire purchase agreement. Learned counsel for the respondent further points out that after receipt of the demand notice at Annexure-6, petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 2,07,910/- on 23.11.2010 without any protest and sought to challenge the computation in the present writ petition preferred after four years of the issuance of the demand, in the year 2014. It is further submitted that in any case, computation of the amount made by the respondent- Housing Board and repudiation of the balance outstanding by the petitioner is determinable solely under the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and hire purchase agreement. It is submitted that the Housing Board is under financial obligation to repay its debt at a particular rate of compound interest which is the reason for levy of compound interest for such allotment of house/ flat in favour of any allottees.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the computation chart prepared by him does contain reference of calculation of all such permissible interest payable to the respondent- Board at the prescribed rate under the hire purchase agreement. The respondent- Board is not acting in terms of the conditions incorporated in the hire purchase agreement and is resorting to usury tactics to extract payments more than what is legally admissible from the petitioner.

I have given considerable hearing to the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. In the factual matrix of the case referred to herein above, at the outset few things are required to be noticed. Petitioner on the face of his own computation has not been regular in making payments of the instalments as is evident from page 48 itself of the computation chart prepared by it. At the same time the computation chart of the amount charged from the petitioner enclosed with the impugned letter at Annexure-6 dated 7.10.2010, for strange reason has not been enclosed by the petitioner for consideration of the Court as to whether the respondent- Board has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the agreement of hire purchase and allotment letter. This Court is not at the same time convinced that petitioner whose instalments were fixed for payment of premium amount at the time of allotment through Annexure-1, which contained specific provision relating to levy of compound interest is absolved of the payment of such interest at the time of making payment of monthly instalment. The allotment letter prescribed payment of compound interest @ 2.5% over and above the component of compound interest included in fixation of monthly instalment. The hire purchase agreement entered with the petitioner also stipulate levy of interest @ 1% for default in payment of premium instalment or rent apart from levy of administrative and financial charges as noticed herein above.

Though learned counsel for the petitioner has endeavoured to convince this Court that issue involved is a question of law i.e., whether the respondent- Board is entitled to levy demand of outstanding dues under the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement and the issue is not of computation of the amount alone, but on consideration of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and hire purchase agreement, however this Court is satisfied that the issue involved herein would at best be related to computation of outstanding dues of principal and interest in respect of the petitioner''s account relating to the house in question allotted to her. However, this Court fails to understand as to why petitioner after having made payment of Rs. 2 lakh and odd in November, 2010 has ventured to approach this Court after 4 years while it should have raised its grievances before the appropriate forum or Court of law with all promptitude instead of allowing the matter to linger for such a long time, which in effect would entail increase of outstanding dues finally payable by the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of allotment letter and hire purchase agreement.

Having observed herein above, this Court stills consider it fair and proper to give opportunity to the petitioner to approach the respondent- Housing Board with a representation containing its computation of account to be considered as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and hire purchase by the competent authority under the respondent- Board. However on the specific considerations of all the pleas advanced by the parties, this Court does not find any justification to quash the impugned letter dated 7.10.2010(Annexure-6) issued by the Revenue Officer of the respondent- Board.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Needless to say that respondent- Board would accord consideration to the representation of the petitioner, if already made within a reasonable time preferably 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Dependent upon such decision, petitioner would be liable to pay the outstanding amount due against the house in question for execution of the final lease deed in her favour.