JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD (MANAGING DIRECTOR) vs INDU SINGH

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where respondents have filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service.

VERY briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the respondent/ complainant was allotted L.I.G. Flat No. 39 situated in Harmu Hargoda Housing Colony, Ranchi. The tentative price of the flat has been mentioned at Rs. 22,000. The money was to be paid as per details given in this allotment letter dated 4.7.1978 but when after making initial payments, the possession as well as execution of deed in favour of the complainant was not being made, a complaint was made before the District Forum, which was contested by the opposite party. After hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, the District Forum has passed the order in following terms: "17. Thus two reliefs are being given, first, the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna, OPs are directed to execute the Deed of Agreement in favour of complainant in respect to LIG Flat No. R-39 in terms and price as quoted in the Deed of Agreement and secondly, the Housing Board and OPs are severally liable to pay sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the complainant. It is further directed that the OP shall execute the Deed of Agreement as above and pay the compensation as above within a period of 2 months from now failing which the order shall be executed by the process issued under Section 27, C.P. Act. It is further directed that if the amount of Rs. 50,000 is not paid by the end of June, 2000, the OPs shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. with effect from July, 2000 till the realisation over the principal amount of Rs. 50,000, the compensation amount. The amount as above shall be paid by the OPs to the complainant under crossed account may be given with the intimation to the Forum. 16. It is therefore ordered that the case be heard and decreed on the contest with cost of Rs. 500.

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the State Commission, where there was a delay in filing the appeal of almost five months. After considering the material on record, the State Commission dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation. However, it also considered the matters on merit and after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, upheld the findings of the District Forum and modified the order of the District Forum only to the extent that the amount of compensation was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 20,000. Aggrieved by this order this revision petition has been filed before us.

It is very pertinent to note that the State Commission primarily had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation but there is not a single word on this point in the Revision Petition filed before us.

THE facts of the case as they appear from the record are that by letter dated 23.1.1978, the complainant was allotted an L.I.G. Flat No. R-36 in the same colony on ''rental'' basis by the petitioner Housing Board carrying Rent of Rs.150 per month + Rs. 15 for municipal tax + Rs. 10 as water tax. THE complainant was, later on, allotted LIG Flat No. 39 in the same colony for a total consideration of Rs. 22,000, which was the tentative price. It is not in dispute that the complainant was not regular in paying the rent of Flat No. 36 in view of which the Housing Board cancelled the allotment of Flat No. 36 vide letter dated 21.6.1988 and re-allotted to another person. In the meantime, it appears that the complainant took the possession of Flat No. R-39. The grievance of the petitioner appeared to be that since there was unpaid arrear relating to Flat No. R-36 which was occupied by the respondent in the capacity of a tenant, and since this was not being paid, the Housing Board by order dated 3.7.1990 ordered the eviction of the complainant/respondent from Flat No. R-39 on the ground that the possession has been taken illegally and he is in the status of being an encroacher. On an appeal filed against this order by the complainant before the Appellate Authority, namely, Dy. Secretary, Department of Housing, Government of Jharkhand, this order was set aside, meaning thereby that the possession of the Flat No. R-39 was held to be valid. It also held that since the instalments were being paid as per terms of allotment, the sale-deed should really have been executed.

THERE is no doubt, in our mind, that the very ground of the petitioner for not executing sale-deed, i.e., forcible occupation of LIG Flat No. R-39 was held to be invalid. As far as the recovery of arrears relating to rent of Flat No. R-36 is concerned, technically the lower Fora may be right that this could not have been made ground for non-execution of sale-deed but it needs to be appreciated that in one flat the complainant was the tenant and the other flat i.e., LIG R-39, he was to be the owner under a ''hire-purchase'' agreement, in view of which if the petitioner asked for the clearance of payment of arrear amount rent, in our view, no fault would be fastened on the part of the petitioner. They are entitled for this. Since the parties are the same in both cases, in the interest of equity and justice, the Housing Board, which is a public body, would be entitled to settlement of account in respect of tenanted flat, in this case, LIG R-36, before the execution of sale-deed, in respect of other flat, i.e., LIG R-39. In our view, both the lower Fora erred in looking at one, i.e., the execution of sale-deed, at the exclusion of the other, namely, non-settlement of arrears of rent. THERE is no dispute that the petitioner was and is willing to give the possession subject to the payment of arrears of rent in respect of Flat No. R-36. It is also by now settled law that the Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of pricing, more so, in this case, when the allotment letter in respect of Flat No. R-39 issued on 4.7.1978 in para 3 clearly stated that the price of the flat assessed at Rs. 22,000 is tentative. In the aforementioned circumstances, we partly allow the Revision Petition and modify the order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission to the extent that petitioner shall be free to charge the price as fixed for each flat under the Policy, and the respondent / complainant shall also pay the arrears of rent, only outstanding against him, in respect of LIG R-36, within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. After receiving these amounts, the petitioner shall execute a sale-deed in favour of the complainant within four weeks thereafter. In the written arguments, two points have been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the District Forum could not have directed the petitioner for execution of sale-deed in view of the decision of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Kanta Dhir v. Jaina Properties Pvt. Ltd., 1992 (2) CPR 58 (Delhi). We are not impressed by this argument. This Commission in a catena of judgment has directed execution of sale-deed after complying with the terms of the order keeping in view the merits of each case.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the District Forum and reduced by the State Commission needs to be further reduced and is fixed at Rs. 10,000 which may; be adjusted against the amount total payable by the respondent/complainant. The revision petition stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal partly allowed.