GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Satish Chandra Gupta

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) against the order passed by State Commission of Uttar Pradesh in Appeal No. 1574/SC/1994.

THE facts of this case in brief are that the respondent before us had booked a house in Govindpuram Housing Scheme floated by GDA in May 1989. THE complainant had deposited the full amount (Rs. 1,75,000/-) of the cost of the house, as indicated at that time, within the stipulated time period. THE house was expected to be completed within two years i.e. by 1991. THE respondent/complainant in the absence of getting possession of the house allotted to him through a draw of lots in 1991; started living in a hired accommodation after his retirement from 31.3.1991 onwards. Since he was not getting the house as expected, he filed a complaint before the District Forum, Ghaziabad praying for delivery of possession, 18% interest on the amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- deposited by him with GDA along with reimbursement of rent paid by the respondent/complainant as also quashing of the escalation in cost of the house now valued at Rs. 2,05,000/-. After hearing both the parties, the District Forum ordered on 12.5.1994 for delivery of possession of completed house within two months of the order otherwise compensation @ Rs. 1,000/- p.m. will be payable from 1.8.1994 till the delivery of the possession, payment of interest @ 15% p.a. on Rs. 1,75,000/- from 1st February, 1992 till the date of delivery of possession and cost of Rs. 500/-. Against the order petitioner GDA filed an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed with the modification that the rate of interest payable shall be 18% instead of 15% as directed by the District Forum. It is against this order that the petitioner GDA has filed this revision petition.

Three pleas have been taken by the petitioner-one, that both the lower Courts could not award compensation against rent paid by the respondent/complaint, secondly, the rate of interest granted is very high and needs to be reduced to 12% and thirdly, the period of stay granted by the High Court in prosecuting the Govindpuram Housing Scheme i.e. from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993 needs to be set off for the interest amount. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner on all the three pleas and find that the petitioner had taken a stand before the District Forum through is reply dated 24.7.1993 that the possession will be given ''shortly'' based on which the District Forum gave reasonable time to GDA to deliver the possession, which expired on 1.8.1994. Actual possession was given on 7.8.1995 which calls into question the veracity of the stand taken by GDA before the District Forum that possession shall be given ''shortly''. We appreciate that the word ''shortly'' may not be defined but to extend it to over one year will be extending the word shortly too far for the comprehension of any individual or public body, more so, when the petitioner was expected to deliver the possession within 1991 after receiving the full payment of the amount indicated at that time. There has been a clear deficiency of service on the part of GDA and we do not find anything wrong with the orders of District Forum and State Commission in this regard. Another point made out relates to non-payment of interest for the stay period ordered by High Court. Here two points emerge on fact and law. After perusing the reply filed before the District Forum and the Memo of Appeal filed before the State Commission, we do not find even a whisper on this point which stops the petitioner to raise any new plea at revision stage when it has not been taken at earlier stages. No plea was ever taken before any FORA below, that the construction of these houses had not started whereas the stay was granted by the High Court only on new construction. On the contrary in the written statement dated 24.7.1993 filed before the District Forum, GDA states that the house is completely constructed but some development work remains in the scheme. The possession shall be delivered shortly to the complainant. Even otherwise, we find it unrealistic and unbelievable to deduce that the stay got vacated on 16.12.1993 and houses were ready for possession in 1994-95 ! The stand of the petitioner is also belied by the statement in its written version filed on 24.7.1993 before the District Forum that possession letter shall be issued shortly. The above clearly goes to show that the house was not covered by the stay order of the High Court, hence, GDA cannot take umberage under this and pray for excluding this period of stay from grant of interest to the respondent/complainant. On the rate of interest, we have seen the State Commission''s very well-reasoned and detailed order and are inclined to agree with the rate of interest granted to the respondent/ complainant keeping in view the facts of the circumstances of the case. We, however, refrain from doing so since large number of cases relating to rate of interest to be granted in similar case are before us which the Commission shall be taking up soon for decision.

THE notice to the respondent may be issued limited to rate of interest. We make it clear that as in other similar matters, GDA shall make payment of the amount based on 12% within a period of four weeks subject to which rate of interest is stayed. We make it clear that in case the amount as ordered, is not paid within the stipulated period, the stay shall stand vacated automatically. Admit, limited to rate of interest. Notice to parties. Let this matter be listed on 30th January, 2002. Ordered Accordingly. ______________