HOSUR HOUSING UNIT, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD vs A. Dhanaraj

THE Tamil Nadu Housing Board is the appellant. THE complainant''s case is that the complainant applied for allotment of a house in Krishnagiri Old Housing Unit. He paid a sum of Rs. 500/- towards Earnest Money Deposit. He was allotted a house bearing Door No. LIG 29 at the Old Housing Unit in Bangalore Road, Krishnagiri. THE complainant thereafter paid a sum of Rs. 4,200/-. THE complainant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 218/- per month for a period of 14 years and a sum of Rs. 20/- towards maintenance charges. He has been paying at the above rates and in all he has paid a sum of Rs. 41,324/- at the end of 14 years. He also paid an additional cost of Rs. 2,600/- on 3.1.1983. As against the amount of Rs. 34,008/-, the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs. 41,324/-. THE complainant approached the opposite party and requested to execute the sale deed. THE opposite party asked the complainant to wait for some time and he was also informed that he has to pay some arrears. THEre was no other communication from the opposite party. THEre was no arrears due by the complainant. THE complainant has paid more amount than necessary. THE complainant is ready to bear the expenses towards stamp papers and towards registration. Hence, the complainant prays for a direction to the opposite party to execute the deed of sale and also refund a sum of Rs. 4,700/- paid in excess by him to the opposite party.

IN the objections filed by the opposite party it is stated that the allotment was made on 20.3.1981 to the complainant when the cost of the house was fixed at Rs. 25,000/-. The initial deposit for the house was Rs. 4,200/- and a sum of Rs. 500/- was collected as Earnest Money Deposit. The balance of the principal towards the building has to be collected at Rs. 218/- per month for 14 years. The land cost has been tentatively arrived at Rs. 3.30 per square feet. The land and development cost was finalized and was informed accordingly on 1.12.1989. The allottee abstained from paying the land cost. As per the procedure of the Board, when a request is made for the execution of the sale deed, the accounts have to be finalized and closed calculating the principal due and the interest due with penal interest. Further, as per the Board rules, the allottee has to submit an affidavit and undertaking and has to produce the latest house tax receipt. They have so as to also produce the approved building plan to see whether there has been violation of any condition. The Housing Board could execute the sale deed only thereafter. It is not true to say that the complainant is not in arrears. It is not true to say that he approached the opposite party for executing the sale deed on 11.4.1998. The Housing Board is ready to execute the sale deed provided that all amounts due and payable by the complainant are cleared by him. The pricing policy cannot be questioned by the complainant. The lower Forum directed the complainant to remit a sum of Rs. 3,015/- within two months and further directed the opposite party to execute the sale deed on such payment. Hence the present appeal by the opposite party.

The Housing Board has sent a letter dated 19.12.1997 that after finalization of the accounts and payment of dues such as penal interest on belated payment and other interest charges if any, the accounts of the concerned will be closed and action will be taken to issue draft sale deed. The working sheet is enclosed, from which we find that the tentative cost of the building was fixed at Rs. 25,000/- and interest on tentative cost + penal interest, maintenance charges, difference in land cost and interest thereon were all calculated and finally it has been computed that a sum of Rs. 67,743/- was to be paid by the complainant and the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 41,324/- and thus according to the opposite party there is still a sum of Rs. 26,419/-. The opposite party would also contend that he has not paid the instalments regularly and that he has to pay interest for belated payments and maintenance charges also are to be paid. The lower Forum has held that the complainant is not bound to pay the difference in the cost since the final price of the property has not been fixed within three years of allotment. In this connection, it has relied upon a judgment of this Commission reported in I (1998) CPJ 115. The complainant has not chosen to produce the agreement entered into between him and the opposite party. Unless we know the nature of agreement executed between the parties and the conditions thereon, one cannot say, that the sale deed has to be executed within three years. Therefore, the ruling relied upon by the lower Forum cannot come to the aid of the complainant. From the working sheet, we find that still certain sums are due from the complainant to the Housing Board. There is no reason why we should not accept the working sheet or accounts sheet, produced by the Housing Board. Therefore, according to the Housing Board, still a large sum is due from the complainant. The complainant has not, as pointed out earlier, produced the copy of the agreement. There is nothing to show that he has complied with the conditions of the agreement. Therefore, it is natural that the seller should be paid the entire price before he can be directed to execute the sale deed. In this case on hand, from the records produced by the opposite party, it is clear that the buyer has not paid the entire cost. Therefore, in our opinion, without making payment of the entire cost and without showing the reason as to why he is not liable to pay the amount as claimed by the Housing Board, the complainant cannot seek any direction, much less for the execution of the sale deed. Therefore, in our view, the appeal has to be accepted. Accordingly we reverse the order of the District Forum.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances without costs. The complaint shall stand dismissed without costs. However, if the complainant pays the balance amount as claimed by the appellant Housing Board, within two months the appellant shall execute the sale deed accordingly in favour of the complainant. Appeal allowed.