LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Anil Kumar Nigam

THERE is a delay of 124 days in filing revision. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condoning delay, delay is condoned.

THE Complainant had applied for allotment of B'' Type house in Gomti Nagar Housing Scheme and had deposited Rs. 6,000 towards registration. The Complainant was informed vide letter dated 4.4.1984 by the opposite party regarding allotment of house on Hire Purchase Basis. The estimated cost was stated to Rs. 50,000. The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 35,000 besides the interest of Rs. 1904 upto 21.1.1992. By letter dated 14.4.1985, the opposite party had informed the Complainant that the cost of the house had increased from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 66,000. The case of the Complainant is that in spite of repeated requests, possession of the house was not given. On 28.12.1991 a letter was received by him from the opposite party that he should further deposit a sum of Rs. 84,708 as difference of the value of the house and other charges of Rs. 4,569.25, plus other charges like Stamp Duty etc., amounting to Rs. 15,000. Though, the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000 on 21.4.1998 but he protested against enhancement of price. Since the possession was not delivered to the Complainant, he filed complaint before District Forum in 1994 and sought direction for handing over possession of the house on payment of price of Rs. 50,000. He also sought direction to opposite party to furnish detailed account of dues and claimed interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount deposited from the date of deposit as also compensation of Rs. 20,000 for mental agony and harassment with costs of Rs. 2,000.

DISTRICT Forum found that the Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 35,000 upto 21.1.1992, besides interest of Rs. 1,904 and he was entitled to get 18% interest on the said amount of Rs. 35,000 from 21.1.1992 till possession of the house is given to him towards compensation and loss suffered by him. The opposite party was directed to inform the Complainant about the final cost of the house as also instalments to be paid by him so that amount could be deposited in time. Accordingly, directions were given for working out the final cost of the house and the balance instalments to be paid by the Complainant as also to handover possession of the house to the Complainant within 60 days of the order. The opposite party was directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs. 35,000 w.e.f. 21.1.1992 till actual possession was handed over to him. This order was challenged by the opposite party in appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the required deposits were not made by the Complainant and as such, there was no justification for District Forum who had passed an order for 18% interest from the last deposit till handing over of possession. It was further held that the opposite party was justified to claim dues not paid along with penal interest as available in the brochure till 31.1.1995. Therefore, the opposite party was directed to submit dues list calculating upto 31.12.1995 within a month and the Complainant shall be under obligation to make the payment of dues, as claimed and that possession be handed over to the Complainant within a month. It was further observed that in the event if the dues list is not submitted the order will be justified to that extent and in that event the Complainant shall be entitled for interest @ 18% from the date of deposit.

THE opposite party filed revision against the said order of the State Commission dated 4.10.2006 limited to the direction "in the event if the dues list is not submitted, the order shall be justified to that extent and in that event the Complainant will be entitled for interest @ 18% from the date of deposit". The opposite party had also filed an application for extension of time before the State Commission, which was rejected by the State Commission vide order dated 12.3.2007. The said order is also subject matter of revision.

BEFORE this Commission, it was submitted on 12.3.2008 that the total amount of Rs. 36,904 had been paid by the Complainant to the opposite party. After hearing learned Counsel appearing for both sides, the Complainant was directed to show 3 receipts evidencing payment of this amount to the Legal Assistant of the opposite party on 31.3.2008 and thereafter the opposite party will call upon the Complainant to pay the dues calculated upto 31.12.1995 within a period of 3 months. It was further ordered that on deposit of the demanded amount, the possession of the house in question would be handed over by the opposite party to respondent within 3 weeks. The matter was adjourned to 13.5.2008. On that date, learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that instead of showing receipts in original, the Complainant had sent copies thereof to the opposite party and acting on them, the Authority had issued demand letter for Rs. 1,45,997, which was deposited by the Complainant through DD dated 3.5.2008. Learned Counsel for the opposite party further stated that necessary charges for execution of agreement were yet to be deposited by the Complainant. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Complainant had stated that amount of Rs. 9,280 and Rs. 2,500 for the purchase of general Stamp Papers, etc. were deposited by the Complainant on 21.1.1992. However, it was noted that the total amount demanded in the letter dated 28.12.1991 was Rs. 1,776.25 while the Complainant had deposited only a sum of Rs. 15,000 without disclosing the heads under which it was deposited. Accordingly, the Complainant was directed to deposit balance of Rs. 1,776.25 ps. in connection with execution of the agreement. On deposit of the said amount, agreement was to be executed and possession of house was to be given within a fortnight period to the Complainant thereafter. The other issues were kept open for deciding in revision.

THE Complainant moved M.A. No. 442 of 2008 for contempt against the respondents and this application was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 1.9.2008. After hearing Counsel for the parties and in view of orders dated 12.3.2008 and13.5.2008, the learned Counsel for the Complainant stated that Stamp Papers worth Rs. 60,300 and cash of Rs. 5,648.30 will be deposited with the petitioner -authority by 15.9.2008. Accordingly, it was ordered that on supplying Stamp Papers, the opposite party will execute the agreement, apply for registration thereof, and offer possession of the house to the Complainant within 2 weeks of registration of the agreement. There was delay on the part of the opposite party in complying with order dated 1.9.2008 of the Commission, yet on 3.12.2008, it was agreed by Counsel for both the parties that the Complainant shall appear before Secretary/Officiating Secretary, LDA on 8.12.2008 for executing the agreement. The Secretary/Officiating Secretary was directed to ensure compliance of the order so that agreement was executed on 8.12.2008 itself and on execution of agreement, the same was ordered to be handed over to the Complainant on 8.12.2008 itself for presentation for registration. It was further ordered that once registration is effected, the possession shall be handed over to the Complainant within 2 weeks, thereafter.

COUNSEL for both sides have stated before us that the agreement was executed on 8.12.2008 and it was got registered and possession of the house in question has been handed over to the Complainant. Thus, order dated 3.12.2008 stands fully complied with.

LEARNED Counsel for the Complainant submitted before us that there are certain defects in the construction for which, estimate of Rs. 1,91,000 has been given by Architect and the Complainant is entitled to receive the same from the opposite party. In any event, the Complainant is entitled to receive 18% interest as awarded by the State Commission. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, awarding of interest is not justified, as the Complainant was himself largely responsible for not making the payment of all dues and it was only with the intervention of the Commission that the dues have been paid.

THE scope of the revision is restricted to the challenge made in this revision. The Complainant shall be free to take up the issues relating to defects in the construction, which were there at the time of handing over of the possession and shall be free to pursue his remedy in respect of the same. The same would not fall within the scope of this revision. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the Complainant himself was largely responsible for not paying the substantial dues and paid a sum of Rs. 1,45,997 after adjusting amount of Rs. 36,904 paid by him through intervention of this Commission, it would not be just and proper to direct the opposite party to pay 18% interest, as directed by the District Forum and conditionally upheld by the State Commission. It may also be mentioned here that the Estate Officer of the opposite party had on 9.11.2006 directed the Complainant to remain present with original records/accounts regarding payments made for the purpose of compliance of the order of the State Commission dated 4.10.2006. However, it appears that the Complainant did not approach the opposite party and on 9.3.2007, the opposite party filed an application before the State Commission for extension of time, which, of course, was rejected, vide order dated 12.3.2007. Thereafter the opposite party had approached this Commission by way of revision.

IN the light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the revision is allowed and conditional direction of the State Commission, which is challenged in this revision, is set aside in relation to payment of 18% interest to the Complainant from the date of deposit till possession is handed over. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. R.P. allowed.