M.P. Housing Board vs SHIVAJI RAO NIKHALE

-THIS appeal by opposite party-the M.P. Housing Board, arises from the order dated 30.7.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore in C.C. No. 362/2004 directing the appellant-Board to execute lease/sale deed of the allotted house in favour of respondent-allottee and also pay to him interest @ 12% p.a. on his deposits i.e., Rs. 1,94,887 from 1.6.1995 to 23.5.2003. Cost Rs. 1,000 has also been awarded.

FOR the purpose of this appeal it is no more in dispute that respondent-complainant was allotted a house No. M-82 GS situated at Nanda Nagar, Indore, by appellant-Board on one time full payment basis, vide allotment letter dated 6.5.1994. The estimated cost of the house was fixed at Rs. 1,94,312 + advance lease rent Rs. 575, total Rs. 1,94,887. The respondent allottee who had already deposited a sum of Rs. 90,000 (by way of registration fee, etc.) till that date was required to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,04,887 within 30 dyas and get the lease deed executed before taking possession of the house. It was however, clearly stated in the said allotment order dated 6.5.1994 that the cost indicated in the order is provisional and that the respondent allottee will have to pay the price as may be fixed finally in due course. The respondent deposited the said balance amount of Rs. 1,04,887 with the appellant-Board through an account payee cheque on 19.4.1995 i.e., with a delay of about 10 months. The possession of the house was delivered to the respondent on 23.5.2003. It appears that in the meantime, some additional land was also allotted to the respondent and the final cost of the house including the said additional land was fixed at Rs. 2,71,502 and then reduced to Rs. 2,51,031 vide letter dated 21.4.2004. After giving adjustment of the amount already deposited by the respondent, he was require to pay the balance amount of Rs. 46,169 which he deposited the same day i.e., 21.4.2004. However, the lease/sale deed of the property still remained unexecuted. The main grievance of the respondent before the District Forum was that despite his depositing the entire cost of the house, the possession of the house was not delivered to him for long 8 years. The demand for Rs. 46,169 made vide letter dated 21.4.2004 was wholly unjustified still he deposited the said amount under protest. It was further contended that the appellant-Board has been using the said house for its office purpose whereas he had to live in a rented house and pay rent for the same. He thus, claimed interest on his deposit for the entire period of delay, rent at the rate of Rs. 500 per month and general damages Rs. 1,00,000.

The appellant-Board contested the respondent''s claim and it was submitted that the respondent allottee himself did not come forward to get the lease and other documents executed and take possession of the house. It was further contended that on his request some additional land apertaining to the house was allotted to him at the same rate charged for the rest of the land. It was thus, contended that the respondent-complainant was not entitled to any compensation.

BOTH parties adduced evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The Forum below allowed the complaint and passed order for payment of interest as aforesaid on the finding that there was unjustified delay of 8 years in delivering possession of the house to the respondent. As regards the allotment of additional land it was held that it was altogether a separate issue and in no way justified the said long delay in delivery of possession of the house to the respondent. We have heard Mr. Ravindra Tiwari, learned Counsel for appellant and Mr. Rakesh Jain, learned Counsel for respondent. We have also gone through the evidentiary material on record.

AS already stated, possession of the house was delivered to the respondent on 23.5.2003 whereas he had deposited the entire amount of cost of the house as demanded by the appellant-Board, on 19.4.1995. True, that the cost indicated in the allotment letter dated 6.5.1994 was provisional not final. But, it was for the appellant-Board to finalize the cost and demand the balance amount if any, from the respondent-allottee. However, no such action seems to have been taken nor any demand was ever made by the appellant until on 21.4.2004 when for the first time an additional demand of Rs. 46,169 was made from the respondent fixing the final cost of the house and the said additional land at Rs. 2,51,031. From this demand letter it appears that earlier the cost was fixed at Rs. 2,71,502, but the same was finally reduced to Rs. 2,51,031. However all this appear to be a latter development after allotment of additional land to the respondent. It would not be unreasonable to infer that additional amount Rs. 46,169 has been charged from the respondent towards the cost of the said additional land. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellant-Board had ever revised the cost of the house as originally allotted to the respondent or demanded any additional amount from the latter at any time on or before 23.5.2003 when the possession of the house was delivered to the respondent. In any case, delay in fixation of final cost was on the part of appellant-Board and which could not be a justification for delay in delivery of the house to the respondent. Appellant-Board claims to have written letters dated 20.7.1995, 6.8.1996, 20.11.1996, 7.11.2002 and 13.2.2003 requiring the respondent to get the lease/sale deed of the house executed and registered. It is however, interesting to note that the respondent has also made as many as 12 applications (vide Annexures 6 to 17) requesting appellant to deliver possession of the house to him. Receipt of all these applications were duly acknowledged by the appellant''s officers. However, no action was taken by the appellant to deliver possession of the house to the respondent. Significantly in neither of the aforesaid letters dated 20.7.1995, 6.8.1996, 20.11.1996, 7.11.2002 and 13.2.2003 any reference is made to the said applications of the respondent or about the delivery of possession of the hosue to the respondent. It was not the case of the appellant that the possession was withheld on account of non-execution of transfer deed. It is significant to note here that ultimately possession was delivered to the respondent on 23.5.2003 even without execution or registration of any such transfer deeds in his favour. There was thus, no justification whatsoever for not delivering possession of the house to the respondent even when he had deposited the entire cost amount of the house as per appellant''s demand, on 19.4.1995. The deficiency in service on the part of appellant-Board was writ large. As regards the compensation, it is seen that the respondent was deprived of his right of use and occupation of the house for long 8 years during which time his money remained deposited with the appellant-Board. The respondent has clealry averred that the house in question was being used by appellant for its office purpose. This allegation of the respondent has not been rebutted by the appellant. It appears that since officers of the appellant-Board were not able to make alternative arrangement for their office they continued to occupy the hosue in question thereby depriving the respondent of his legal right to use and occupy the house. The appellant-Board was, therefore, liable to compensate the respondent adequately. The Forum below has awarded interest by way of compensation @ 12% p.a. on the amount deposited by the respondent by way of cost of the house with the appellant for the said period of 8 years. The interest awarded in our opinion, cannot be termed as excessive. Direction for execution of necessary documents also calls for no interference.

IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with cost Rs. 1,000. Appeal dismissed.