Jagdish Prasad Chaturvedi vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

HEARD Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioner and learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent.

THE complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 1,800 towards registration of flat under LIG vide Bank Challan dated 28.1.1980. According to the complainant, he had filed applications many times before the Housing Board for getting the house, but there was no response. No details of the applications have been given by the complainant in the complaint filed before the District Forum. The complainant further alleged that he was continuously going to the office of the Dy. Commissioner, Kota since last 20 years and ultimately, filed an application dated 12.3.2001, which was replied by the Housing Board on 14.6.2001, in which it was stated that since the requisite amount had not been deposited, the allotment of house was cancelled on 4.7.1989. The complainant alleged that he had not received any information of allotment or deposit of amount and he sent letter dated 22.8.2001 for allotment of house to the Housing Board. The Housing Board vide letter dated 13.9.2001 informed him that house cannot be allotted and he may take refund of registration amount. Accordingly, the complainant approached District Forum on 11.1.2002 for direction to allot the house as also compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.

THE opposite party/petitioner admitted the payment of registration amount but contended that 3 letters were sent to the complainant but the complainant did not pay. The said letters were sent on 1.9.1983, 9.1.1986 and 25.5.1987. In spite of that, allotment and possession letter was issued to the complainant for deposit of the amount on 7.10.1988 but the amount was not deposited and allotment was ultimately cancelled on 4.7.1989. The opposite party also took the plea that the complaint was time barred. District Forum held that final notice dated 25.5.1987 had not been served on the addressee since the opposite party was not able to establish that the person who had received the said letter had any relation with the complainant. It was also held that the opposite party was not able to establish the service of other letters on the complainant. Accordingly, directions were given by the District Forum to allot House No. 1 -L/47, Mahaveer Nagar Extn., Kota to the complainant upon payment of price thereof. This order was challenged by the Housing Board before the State Commission.

THE State Commission found that the opposite party had sent final notice dated 25.5.1987 for payment of seed money. Even after issuing reminders for not depositing seed money for more than 3 years, the State Commission found that the District Forum erred in coming to the conclusion that the said notice dated 25.5.1987 was not duly served on the respondent. In this respect, it was pointed out that the opposite party had filed an affidavit stating that the lady who had received letter dated 25.5.1987 was the wife of nephew of the complainant who was residing with the complainant in the same house. Therefore, the State Commission held that the findings of the District Forum could not be accepted that the said letter dated 25.5.1987 was not served on the complainant. Xerox copy of the said letter has also been filed before us, which shows that the letter was duly addressed and received by the addressee. No counter affidavit was filed by the complainant in this behalf. In this letter dated 25.5.1987, it was clearly stated that if the dues are not paid, the allotment is liable to be cancelled in accordance with the rules. Admittedly, after deposit of registration money, no payment was made by the complainant and the complainant was duly informed that the allotment was liable to be cancelled. But in spite of that, the complainant did not bother to deposit the dues. The cancellation was a mere formality in the facts of the case and the allotment was duly cancelled vide letter dated 4.7.1989. The case of the complainant is that he had sent applications many times for allotment of house but did not get response and that he was regularly going to the office of the Dy. Commissioner of Housing Board for 20 years but there was no response. If he was pursing the matter as stated above, he would have certainly come to know that the allotment had been cancelled pursuant to letter dated 25.5.1987. In this state of affairs it has to be concluded that the complainant was fully aware of notice and allotment letter, but the dues were not deposited. It appears that to create cause of action for filing a time barred claim, the complainant sent letter dated 12.3.2001 to the Housing Board. The Housing Board had taken the plea that the complaint was barred by time. It is now well settled that subsequent representations, correspondence and letters sent by a party cannot extend the period of limitation. The complaint in fact was time barred.

THE State Commission modified the order of the District Forum stating that if House No. 1 -L/47, Mahaveer Nagar Extn., Kota has not been allotted to any other person, the same be allotted to him and if the same has been allotted to someone else, then the deposit with 9% interest per annum be returned to the complainant.

THE State Commission had given directions to allot House No. l -L/47, Mahaveer Nagar Extn., Kota in case the same was vacant. It is no body''s case that the said house is still vacant and the complainant had in fact sought directions in the revision petition to allot him another vacant house. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances, the complainant is not entitled for allotment of any house since he did not pay any amount after registration even though final notice dated 25.5.1987 was duly served on him and he was informed categorically that in case of non -deposit of the dues, the allotment was liable to be cancelled. The complainant himself is at fault and premium cannot be put on the fault of a party by ordering allotment of another house to him after more than 20 years of the final notice dated 25.5.1987 pursuant to which he did not deposit any amount with the authorities. The State Commission had, therefore, rightly held that even after receipt of letter dated 25.5.1987, the complainant did not deposit the said money and as such, the complainant is himself responsible for the default on his part for which, the opposite party cannot be held liable for deficiency in service.

IN view of the above, revision is dismissed and the complainant shall be entitled to return of deposit of Rs. 1,800 with 9% annual interest thereon inasmuch as House No. l -L/47, Mahaveer Nagar Extn., Kota has been allotted to another allottee and the same cannot be allotted to the complainant. In the facts and circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to any allotment. In view of this, there shall be no order as to costs. R.P. dismissed.