HOUSING BOARD, HARYANA vs Dharam Pal

WHETHER the Housing Board, Haryana is entitled to withhold the deposits received alongwith applications (for the allotment of houses in its schemes) without payment of any interest thereon for indefinitely long periods? This has come to be the crucial question in this appeal.

THE five respondents had submitted their applications for the allotment of houses built by the appellant-Board in Kurukshetra and Dhruhera way back on the 27th of December, 1991. Alongwith the said applications deposits ranging from Rs. 1100/- to Rs. 2500/- were made and accepted by the Board. After an inordinate delay of nearly six months the draw of lots for the said application was held on the 19th of June, 1992. THE respondents being unsuccessful therein, it took another month or more before the deposited amounts were refunded to them, however, without any interest. Aggrieved thereby the complaints were filed seeking interest @ 18% thereon. On notice being issued, the appellant-Board fairly admitted the broad factual position. However, the plea taken was that the respondents were not entitled to interest because in the printed application form there exists a note that no interest was payable on the said deposits.

The District Forum primarily relying on the earlier decision of this Commission in 1992 (2) CPC 427 ''Estate Officer HUDA v. Parmeshwari Devi'' allowed the claim and directed the payment of interest at the rate of 10% p.a.

MR. K.K. Jagia, the learned Counsel for the appellant in a persistent argument had vainly attempted to distinguish the ratio in Estate Officer, HUDA v. Parmeshwari Devi (supra). It was submitted that the said authority pertained to the allotment of sites whereas in the present case the applications were for built houses and for this reason the position was materially different. Since the issue herein seems to be well-covered by previous precedent, it is unnecessary to wastefully and overly elaborate the matter any further. It suffices to mention that in Parmeshwari Devi''s case the matter was considered at considerable depth on larger principle and precedent. The issue of a reasonable time frame for with-holding such deposits was opined in the following terms: "Inevitably, the question then arises as to what would be the reasonable time within which the HUDA could withhold the deposits without the liability of payment of interest thereon. Obviously no inflexible mathematical time limit can be prescribed. However, we are inclined to hold that a period of 6 months from the date of the commencement of the booking to the date of refund should amply meet the ends of justice. This of course is subject to the qualification that in a peculiar case, the HUDA may show some patently valid reason for the further extension of the time limit prescribed above."

Thereafter it was concluded in the following terms: "To finally conclude the answer to the question posed at the outset has to be rendered in the negative. It is held that the HUDA is not entitled to withhold the deposits received without payment of any interest for an indefinite period of time."

MR. Jagia''s attempt to wriggle out of that ratio is somewhat obviously untenable. In the context of processing applications and holding the draw of lots and subsequent refund, the question whether the same pertains to site and houses is a distinction without a difference. Despite being pin-pointed MR. Jagia could advance no rationale as to why in the context of houses, it would take longer to process applications etc., then it would take in the case of sites by the HUDA. In the present day age of computerisation and innumerable other mechanical aids, which are available to a corporate body of the Housing Board''s standing, we are unable to hold that the process should have taken so extended a period of time as in the present case of nearly eight months. We are inclined to hold that the principle enunciated in Parmeshwari Devi''s case is applicable and attracted to the Housing Board equally if not indeed with greater force. In view of the above, the answer to the question posed at the out-set has necessarily to be rendered in the negative and it is held that the Housing Board, Haryana is not entitled to withhold the deposits received alongwith the applications without payment of any interest thereon for indefinitely long periods. Once the aforesaid conclusion has been arrived at, it is obvious that the present appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/- Appeal dismissed with costs.