MAHENDRA VIJAY VARGIA vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

FACTS are not in controversy in this appeal filed by complainant Mahendra Vijay Vargia against the Order of the District Forum, Kota dated 20.1.92 whereby his Complaint Case No. 700 of 1989 was dismissed by the District Forum.

RAJASTHAN Housing Board, with its headquarters at Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur is constituted as an instrumentality of the State under the RAJASTHAN Housing Board Act, 1971 for the purpose of meeting the growing need for housing accommodation day by day increasing with the population in the State, from time to time, frames housing schemes for the benefit of the public. One such scheme floated by the Board was "House Reservation/Allotment Scheme, 1981-82". Complainant Mahendra Vijay Vargia, by depositing an amount of Rs. 1,800/- as registration charges vide challan No. 12867 dated 28th January, 1980 got himself registered for allotment of a house at Kota in Low Income Category. Under the Reservation Scheme 80-81, a house of Low Income Category on a plot of landmeasuring6x 15 sq. ms. At Mahaveer Nagar, Kota was reserved in favour of the complainant by reservation letter issued by the Board on 18.3.92. By this reservation letter, the complainant was required to deposit a total amount of Rs. 2,300/- by two equal instalments of Rs. 1,150/- each as seed money respectively within one month and seven months from the date of issue of the reservation letter. The complainant deposited both the instalments of seed money respectively on 19.4.82 and 19.1.83.

Ultimately on 30.12.1986, the Rajasthan Housing Board Office at Kota issued an allotment-cum-possession letter with respect to House No. 6-C-11 situated in Mahaveer Nagar, Kota in favour of the complainant. This allotment had been made to the complainant on hire-purchase basis. The premium and cost of construction of the house totaled Rs. 40,310/- out of which the amounts deposited as registration charges and seed money already deposited by the complainant were adjusted. By this allotment-cum-possession letter dated 30.12.86, the complainant was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 1679/- within one month from the date of issue of the letter and to furnish affidavit, undertaking and acceptance letter to the Board and to obtain possession of the house before 9.2.82.

COMPLAINANT''s case, as alleged in the complaint, was that although he had received the above allotment-cum-possession letter dated 30.12.86 from the Board allotting to him house No. 6-C-11, but in the said house, office of the Board was running and roof of one of the rooms of the house was incomplete. Consequently, the complainant requested to the Board by a letter that he would deposit the above demanded amount of Rs. 1,679/- as soon as the office of the Board was vacated from the house and the roof of the room is completed. According to the complainant, he deposited the amount of Rs. 1,679/- demanded in allotment-cum-possession letter dated 30.12.86 and 3.2.89 when the office of the Housing Board running in the House vacated it. On 29.9.89 when the complainant went to the local office of the Board at Kota, he came to know that one Kailash Bhootani, suppressing true facts from the District Forum, Kota, obtained order in his favour for delivery of possession of House No. 6-C-11. Kailash Bhootani suppressed from the District Forum, Kota the fact that House No. 6-C-11 had already stood allotted to the complainant. On the basis of these averments, the complainant prayed that possession of House No. 6-C-11 situated in Mahaveer Nagar, Kota may be directed to the delivered to the complainant.

THE version filed by the opposite party before the District Forum was that despite the issue of allotment-cum-possession letter dated 30.12.86 to him, the complainant neither deposited the amount of Rs. 1,679/- required to be deposited by him and other documents were also not furnished. It was denied that the complainant had given any protest letter. Consequently, the allotment made in favour of the complainant was cancelled by the District Allotment Committee on 15.4.87 and this house in question was allotted to Shri Kailash Bhootani. However, allotment letter in favour of Kailash Bhootani could not be issued in time. In the meantime on 3.2.89 the complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 1,679/- which he had been required to deposit by allotment letter dated 30.12.86 within one month of the date of the said allotment letter and produced necessary documents. In the meantime the complainant also made representation regarding the running of office of the Board in the house and of other defects. This representation was made by the complainant at the Housing Board Head Office at Jaipur. Before the Head Office could take any decision, the District Forum, in the complaint, which had been filed by Kailash Bhootani, directed on4.9.87 delivery of possession of house No. 6-C-11 to Shri Bhootani and in pursuance of the above directions of the District Forum, Kota allotmentcum-possession letter was issued to Kailash Bhootani on 12.9.89 and possession of the house was delivered to him after realising an amount of Rs. 11,986/-. During this very time, the Head Office of the Housing Board took decision to allot house to the complainant and when the complainant filed the complaint, the District Forum, Kota passed an interim order on 5.10.89 not to deliver possession to Kailash Bhootani till the case was decided. Kailash Bhootani was also a registered applicant for allotment of a house. He remained deprived of allotment of house on account of double allotment of house No. 766 and the District Allotment Committee, made the allotment of house No. 6-C-11 to Kailash Bhootani. It was also stated that the Housing Board at Kota had also made allotment of this very house on. 29.11.88 to Shanker Lal Param by mistake and a complaint of Shanker Lal Param is also pending before the District Forum. All the three matters were placed before the District Allotment Committee on 10.11.89 and the said Committee took decision to allot house No. 6-F-19 to Shanker Lal Param, house No. 6-B-l to the complainant and House 6-C-11 to Shri Kailash Bhootani. Allotment Letter of house No. 6-B-1. has already been issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board on 30.6.90. The District Forum, Kota has held that when the complainant had received the allotment-cum-possession letter of house No. 6-C-11 in his favour, he ought to have deposited the amount of Rs. 1,679/- demanded from him within one month and should have obtained possession of the house before 9.2.87 after furnishing the required undertaking and other documents. But the complainant did not comply with the directions contained in the allotment letter dated 30.12.86. The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.1,679/-, required to be deposited within one month of 30.12.86, after a delay of 2 years and 4 days on 3.5.89. Before that allotment letter with respect to house No. 6-C-11 had been issued in favour of Shri Kailash Bhootani. Kailash Bhootani had filed complaint in District Forum, Kota against the Rajasthan Housing Board which was decided by the District Forum on 27.9.89 in favour of Shri Kailash Bhootani. The District Forum also held that the District Allotment Committee had now allotted house No. 6-B-l to the complainant and the complainant can obtain the possession of the house now allotted to him. It also held that the Order passed by the District Forum in the complaint filed by Kailash Bhootani in Bhootani''s favour on 4.9.89 cannot be suspended or stayed. On the basis of these findings, the District Forum, Kota dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant by its order dated 20.1.92 against which the complainant has filed this appeal. Learned Counsel for the complainantappellant urged that the delay in deposit of the amount of Rs.1,679/- by the complainant could not furnish a right to the respondent to cancel the allotment of house No. 6-C-11 made in favour of the complainant and at best only penalty for delayed payment could be charged according the Board''s allotment rules themselves. It was also submitted that Board''s office was running in the allotted house and the Board was not in a position to handover the possession of the house and moreover the roof of the room was uncompleted. In these circumstances as well, allotment in favour of the complainant could not be cancelled. Complainant was not a party in the complaint filed by Kailash Bhootani. It was, therefore, urged that the order of the District Forum may be set aside and the opposite parties may be directed to deliver possession of house No. 6-C-11 to the complainant.

ADMITTEDLY on facts, house No. 6-C-11 was allotted to the complainant by the District Allotment Committee on 30.9.82 and an allotment-cum-possession letter on hire-purchase basis had been issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board, Kota Office in favour of the complainant with respect to this house on 30.12.86. Complainant was to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,679/- within one month of the date of issue of the allotment letter and to obtain possession of the house before 9.2.87. Complainant was also required to furnish the necessary affidavit, undertaking and acceptance letter. ADMITTEDLY the complainant did not deposit the amount of Rs. 1679/- within one month from 30.12.86 i.e., upto 29.1.87. He deposited this amount of Rs. 1679/- as late as on 3.2.89, i.e., more than two years after the due date. First question, therefore, arises for determination is whether the allotment of house No. 6-C-11, Mahaveer Nagar, Kota could survive in favour of the complainant despite his depositing the amount of Rs. 1,679/- on 3.8.89 instead of on or before 29.1.87 as required by allotment-cum-possession letter. .

ON behalf of the complainant-appel lant, reliance was placed on some terms and conditions printed on the back of the allotmentcum-possession letter dated 30.12.86. In these terms, it is specified that in case the amount demanded in the allotment letter was not deposited within the period of one month, then interest/penalty will be charged in the following manner:- "Hire-cum-lease basis Income Category For first three EWS months (after one month of issue of allotment letter) LIG - 15% annual interest -Penalty Rs.6/- per day MIG CA, B HIG Every month (after four months of the issue of allotment order:- LIG 15% annual interest - Penalty Rs. 500/-. Thereafter allotment would automatically stand cancelled and the registration amount would be refunded after deduction of 20% amount on account of administration charges as against advance receipt.

The above conditions make it crystal clear that the maximum period upto which allotment could be allowed to continue was for a period of three months starting from one month after the date of allotment letter on payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum and a penalty amount of Rs. 6/- per day. Beyond four months, allotment could be continued on payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum and penalty of Rs. 500/-. It is nowhere the case of the complainant that he deposited any interest amount or any penalty amount as provided for in the above conditions. Admittedly the complainant had only deposited the amount of Rs. 1679/- only after two years and seven months on 3.8.89 without any interest or penalty amount. In the absence of payment of any interest amount and penalty by the complainant during the above period of 2 years and seven months, the registration of the complainant for the house automatically stood cancelled and the complainant, at its best, was only entitled to get the refund of the amount of Rs. 1,500/- deposited by him as registration charges after deduction of 20% from the amount on account of administration charges and to the refund of the total amount of Rs. 2,300/- deposited by him on account of seed money and not to allotment of house No. 6-C-11 allotted to him by allotment-cum-possession letter dated 30.12.86.

THERE is no evidence adduced to show that upon receipt of the allotment-cum-possession letter dated 30.12.86, the complainant sent any letter to the Opposite Party that in the allotted house, the Office of the Board was running or that the roof of a room was not complete. The only letter that was sent was letter dated 25.3.88 wherein mention was made regarding submission of undertaking and possession of house No. 6-C-11 was demanded even without the payment of the amount of Rs. 1,679/- what to say of interest amount and penalty. Consequently the allotment of the complainant rightly stood cancelled and there was no hitch before the Housing Board in allotting house No. 6-C-11 to Kailash Bhootani in whose favour allotment already stands confirmed by the District Forum, Kota. It was only as a matter of grace that the Rajasthan Housing Board in consequence of another decision of the Property Allotment Committee dated 10.11.89 decided to allot to the complainant another house and issued an allotment-cum-possession letter on 30.6.90. If the complainant wants to take the other house No. 6-B-l allotted to him by allotment-cum-possession letter dated 30.6.90, it is his own will and choice and that he can do by making payments required to be made by him under or by the allotment-cum-possession letter dated 30.6.90.

IN view of the above discussion, we hold that the complainant has no right left whatsoever in him to the allotment and possession of house No. 6-C-11, Mahaveer Nagar, Kota on the basis of allotment-cum-possession letter dated 30.12.86 issued in his favour. At best he is entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs. 1800/- deposited by him as registration charges after deduction of 20% amount on account of administration charges and to the refund of the total amount of Rs. 2,300/- deposited by him as seed money with interest at normal rate as per rules of the Rajasthan Housing Board. We, therefore, only partly allow this appeal and direct the opposite party-respondent to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs. 1,800/- deposited by the complainant as registration charges in December, 1980 after deducting 20% of amount therefrom on account of administration charges and further the total amount of Rs. 2,300/- deposited by the complainant as two installments of seed money on 19.4.82 and 19.1.83 with interest at normal rate as per rules of the Rajasthan Housing Board. The complaint filed by the complainant claiming delivery of possession of house No. 6-C-11, Mahaveer Nagar, Kota is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.