GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Pradeep Kumar

-COMPLAINT filed by the respondent was allowed by the District Forum in following terms: "The opposite party shall pay to the complainant the penal interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum on the sum of Rs. 2,15,000 for a period from 1st April, 1991 to 30th April, 1993. An amount of Rs. 37,012 as the enhanced cost of house and Rs. 7,082 as lease rent are payable by the complainant and in this way after adjusting the enhanced cost of the house plus the amount of lease rent out of the amount of the penal interest, the amount of Rs. 36,531 is payable to the complainant. The opposite party shall pay, to the complainant Rs. 36,531 within one month from this day. If the opposite party fails in delivering the possession of the house in question to the complainant within two months from today, the opposite party shall pay to the complainant penal interest also from 1st April, 1995 till the date of delivering the physical possession of the house in question the rate whereof will be 18 per cent per annum which will be computed on the sum of Rs. 2,15,000. "

APPEAL against District Forum''s order filed by the petitioner/opposite party was dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 21.9.2000. In the year 1989, the petitioner floated the Housing Scheme called ''Govindpuram Housing Scheme and the brochure provided that the final cost of the house shall be communicated after completion of construction and possession was expected to be given within two years from the date of reservation of house. Respondent applied for a house under the said scheme. Uptil 1991, he deposited the estimated cost of Rs. 2,15,000 in instalments with the petitioner. It was alleged that by the letter dated 18.4.93 the petitioner authority informed the respondent that the final cost of the house allotted was Rs. 2,52,012 and possession of the house could be taken after depositing the difference in final cost and estimated cost and lease rent but the respondent did not deposit that amount. It was stated that construction under the scheme was stayed by the Allahabad High Court from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993 and the respondent is, thus, not entitled to interest for the period from 1.4.1991 to 30.4.1993 and that too at the higher rate of 18% p.a.

Main thrust of argument advanced by Ms. Reena Singh for petitioner was that since development and construction of Govindpuram Housing Scheme was stayed by the High Court from 24.4.91 to 16 12.1993 the respondent is not entitled to interest as awarded by the District Forum and possession of the allotted house could not be delivered to the respondent as he failed to deposit the difference in final cost and estimated cost and lease rent. In support of first limb of argument, reliance was placed on the decision in GDA v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65, and the order passed by the Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 3256/03 - Sita Nigam v. GDA. As may be seen from aforesaid order dated 21.9.2000, submission in regard to stay being in operation during the said period was also raised before the State Commission on behalf of petitioner authority but was answered against it. Relevant portion of the State Commission''s order in that behalf is reproduced below: "List this petition on 30.4.1991. Meanwhile respondent shall not raise any constructions on the land in question if constructions have not already commenced. It is admitted fact that the Ghaziabad Development Authority had started constructions over the land in dispute before the stay order was passed. Therefore, in terms of this'' stay order the construction which has already been started by the Ghaziabad Development Authority was not affected and the work continued. The stay order only applies to those lands over which the construction has not already commenced. Moreover, there is no plea of the Ghaziabad Development Authority that the been construction has not been started. Therefore, this argument of the learned Counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority cannot be accepted."

CONSIDERING the said order of stay and the fact that petitioner authority had started construction over the land before the stay order was passed, the petitioner relying on the decision in Balbir Singh''s and Siga Nigam''s cases (supra) cannot escape liability for payment of interest for the said period from 1.4.1991 to 30.4.1993. Turning to second limb of argument, as is manifest from the order of District Forum the petitioner authority has been allowed adjustment of the difference in final cost and estimated cost of the house allotted to the respondent as also lease rent from the amount towards interest payable by the authority to the respondent. The respondent cannot be asked to pay twice the difference in final cost and estimated cost of the house allotted and the lease rent. However, considering the ratio in Balbir Singh''s case, we feel that the interest awarded @ 18% is on higher side and the same deserves to be reduced to 12% p.a. With this modification the revision petition is disposed of. No order as to cost. Revision Petition disposed of.