G.D.A. vs SUNIL GARG

THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant - GDA aggrieved by the order of the State Commission which granted the following reliefs to the complainant : "The complaint is partly decreed. The Ghaziabad Development Authority is directed to repair the house allotted to the complainant thoroughly and to make it for living in a perfect condition within a period of three months from the date of this order. If the GDA fails to make this house fit for living then the complainant shall during the course of execution proceedings move an application for appointment of Commissioner and the State Commission shall appoint a Commissioner after informing the Secretary, GDA and the complainant. The Commissioner shall visit the spot and will assess the amount of repairs which will be required to put the house in its original condition. The complainant will also get interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till the date the repairs are made by the GDA or the compensation for the repairs which is to be determined in the execution proceedings is paid. The opposite party, GDA shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost to the complainant."

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the complainant after having been allotted an HIG house under Sanjay Nagar Housing Scheme under SFS on 28.6.1989 deposited the money as demanded on different dates - 28.6.1989 and 25.11.1991. Yet when he could not get the possession even after making full payment as demanded by the petitioner, the com-plainant filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking refund of deposited amount of Rs. 43,870/- along with interest @ 24%, Rs. 5.00 lakhs as damages, Rs. 1.00 lakh towards mental agony, Rs. 2.4 lakhs for wrongful use and occupation plus costs. After hearing both the parties, the State Commission passed the order directing grant of reliefs enumerated earlier. It is argued by the Counsel for the appellant that the complainant admittedly is in possession of the house since late middle of 1996, so the main grievance in the application cannot be sustained. House was always ready in time and the appellant had made repeated offers to the complainant but it is he who was not taking possession. Lease Deed could not be executed, as at the time of filing the appeal, an amount of Rs. 2,11,469/- was stand outstanding against the complainant by way of principal and interest. Since the complainant has been in possession of the house since middle of 1996, the appellant cannot be foisted with any repair costs. Whatever deficiency may be seen in the house would be on account of neglect on the part of the complainant. The order of the State Commission is erroneous on all these grounds hence need to be set aside.

It is the case of the complainant that he was ever willing and ready to take possession of the house but it was the inability of the appellant to deliver a vacant possession which came in the way. It is not disputed that one Sub-Inspector, Balram Singh was in unauthorised possession of the house at the behest of the petitioner - GDA. It is in strange circumstances that the complainant took possession and put his lock after transfer of the said Balram Singh in July/August, 1996. The house was in dilapidated condition hence not acceptable to the complainant. The fact was intimated to the appellant vide his letter dated 4.11.1996. This was followed by a letter dated 25.7.2000 explaining the state of the house and requesting the appellant to execute the sale deed so that he could sell the house to a close relative from whom he had received some amount. Since he has made all the payments as demanded, formal possession be given to him and sale deed be executed. He also drew our attention to the fact that in the letter dated 25.11.1989 lease rent of Rs. 10,794/- and lump-sum amount of Rs. 53,074/- were also demanded. The latter had no basis and the former could be charged after giving over the possession. Yet he deposited these amounts even then the sale deed has not been executed. The house is in bad shape. He has got the house repaired after spending Rs. 3.00 lakhs. There is nothing wrong with the order of the State Commission hence need to be sustained.

WE have heard the arguments and perused the material on record. In our view, undisputed facts are that the complainant was allotted HIG House under Sanjay Nagar HIG House Duplex SFS Scheme in Ghaziabad by the appellant through a letter dated 5.12.1989. The complainant was also directed to pay Rs. 1,65,300/- within 15 days of the letter. Admitted position is that there was delay in depositing Rs. 1,15,000/- (50 days) and Rs. 50,300/- (74 days) even when we generously calculate the due date for payment as 1.1.1990. It is only after almost two years i.e. on 25.9.1991, that complainant is communicated the cost of house at Rs. 3,80,000/- and also asked to pay lease rent of Rs. 10,794/- by 30.10.1991, but all these amounts were deposited between 15.2.1992 and 24.8.1992 i.e. after varying periods of delay. For this in our view the complainant is entitled for interest as per terms of the scheme. Till the time payment is made as per terms of the scheme, the appellant cannot be asked to execute the sale deed. We also see that the question of unauthorised occupation of the said house by Sub-Inspector, Balram Singh has not been specifically disputed but we are unable to appreciate as to how the lock came to be put on this house by the complainant ? We see some explanation on this count in the letter dated 4.11.1996 written by the complainant to the appellant. What we fail to appreciate is that under what circumstances, the complainant was available on the spot to put his lock ? How he came there on that date and time to put the lock ? Then, what was he doing for four long years - because what we see on record is the letter from the complainant dated 25.7.2000 asking the appellant to give a detailed written particulars of due, if any payable, and asking the appellant to register the property in the name of the complainant. There is no specific request to carry out any repairs of this house. It is not disputed that lock on the house of the complainant is from middle of 1996. Related issue is that of carrying out the repairs to the house. In the letter dated 7.8.2000 there is only a mention of Rs. 3.00 lakhs expenditure on repairs. No details on expenditure are available. We had directed the appellant vide our order dated 30.4.2002 to supply us the estimated cost of repairs. This has also not been done, perhaps reflective of desire to skirt the issue.

A point has also been made about the rate of 18% p.a. awarded the complainant on the deposited amount from the date of respective deposits till the date of repairs. If there is delay in delivery of possession, this Commission has awarded interest @ 18% on the deposited amount. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed, we direct the complainant to pay the outstanding amount on account of delayed payments to the appellant as per terms of the scheme. The complainant shall also be entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on the deposited amount from the respective date of deposit till 1.9.1996 when possession was taken by the complainant by putting the lock on the house. He did so of his own will, in circumstances best known to him. His not taking possession would not have affected his right to a house any way. On the cost of repairs we have no figure from the appellant and Rs. 3.00 lakhs as cost of repairs given out by the complainant is uncorroborated and unsubstituted. As directed by the State Commission in its order dated 20.8.2001, we leave it to them, in execution to arrive at a figure of cost of repairs for any loss/damage to the house after getting the estimated cost from a Commissioner to be appointed by them for this purpose. The appeal is disposed of in above terms and the order of the State Commission stands modified to the extent directed above. No order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.