M P HOUSING BOARD vs MAHENDRA PAL SINGH

THE facts, as gathered from the order of the District Forum, are that the complainant in Revision Petition No.3929 of 2010 namely Radha Mohan Sharma was allotted a house by the petitioner Board for a total consideration of Rs.56,390/ -. He deposited Rs.1,000/ - on 25 -05 -1988, Rs.4,000/ - on 03 -04 -1989, Rs.6,602/ - on 02 -11 -1992, Rs.6,602/ - on 01 -12 -1994, Rs.5,490/ - on 06 -03 -1997, interest of Rs.3,177/ - calculated up to the year 1996 and Rs.30,000/ - on 26 -04 -2000. The possession of the house, however, had been taken by him on 20 -11 -1995. Since the installments were not paid by him as per agreement with the petitioner Board, proceedings under Section 55 of M.P. Housing Board Act were initiated against the complainant and pursuant to the said proceedings the possession of the house was also resumed by the petitioner Board on 18 -01 -2009. The amount of Rs.73,871/ - which the complainant had deposited with the petitioner Board was not refunded to him. Being aggrieved he approached the concerned District Forum seeking refund of the aforesaid amount with interest.

THE complainant in Revision Petition No.3931 of 2010 namely Shri Mahendra Pal Singh was allotted a house by the petitioner board for a total consideration of Rs.2,01,219/ - out of which a sum of Rs.50,736/ - was deposited by him and the balance amount was payable in installments spread over 15 years. The aforesaid balance amount was payable in installments of Rs.26,361/ - inclusive of interest and other charges. Though as per the allotment letter penal interest was payable in case installments were not deposited on due dates, it carried no stipulation that in the event of possession being taken by the board on account of non -payment of the installments the amount paid by the allottee till the date possession was taken over shall not be refunded to him.

THE District Forum vide its order dated 06 -05 -2010 in case of Mahendra Pal Singh directed the petitioner Board to refund the amount of Rs.50,736/ - which he had deposited with the petitioner Board, along with interest on that amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date the possession of the house was taken by the Board till the date of payment. Vide another order passed on the same date, the District Forum directed the petitioner Board to refund a sum of Rs.73,871/ - to the other complainant Shri Radha Mohan Sharma along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date on which the possession of his house was taken back. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner Board approached the concerned State Commission by way of two separate appeals. The said appeals having been dismissed vide order dated 04 -08 -2010, the petitioner is before us by way of these revision petitions.

IT is not in dispute that possession of the houses allotted to the complainants has already been taken over by the petitioner Board from them, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 55 of the M.P. Housing Board Act. The contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioner -Board is that since the complainant continued to occupy and enjoy the house allotted to them till the date the possession was taken back from them, without paying the balance sale consideration, the Board is entitled to forfeit the amount which they had deposited till the date the possession was taken back from them. I, however, find no merit in this contention. As noted earlier, there is no stipulation in the allotment letter that in the event of the allottee committing default in payment of the installments and possession being taken by the Board on account of the said default, the amount paid till the date the possession is taken over shall not be refunded to him. No provisions of M.P. Housing Board Act permitting such a forfeiture has been brought to my notice. It is true that the complainants enjoyed the house allotted to them by the petitioner Board without paying full sale consideration, but it is also equally true that the petitioner Board utilized the part sale consideration paid by them, during the aforesaid period. Therefore, the advantage gained by the complainants by using the houses allotted by the petitioner Board was offset by the advantage which the petitioner Board derived by utilizing the money which they had already paid to the said Board. In these circumstances, retaining the amount which the complainants had deposited with the petitioner Board before possession was taken over from them cannot be justified. 5. I also take note of the fact that the District Forum has awarded interest at a reasonable rate and that too only from the date possession was taken over and not from the date on which possession was made. Accordingly, I find no ground to interfere with the view taken by the fora below in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Interim order, if any, is vacated. The revision petitions stand disposed of.