PRIYADARSHAN SHEEL vs SECRETARY, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

-COMPLAINANT, Priyadarshansheel had got himself registered for allotment of a M.I.G. B category house in Sanganer Scheme of the Rajasthan Housing Board on 15.2.1983 and had deposited registration charges of Rs. 4,600/-. Later on the Rajasthan Housing Board issued a letter to the complainant (Annex. 3), which was ready to give the house within 2 years on Self-Financing basis. Option was given to the complainant to get himself registered in this Self-Financing Scheme. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 30.1.88 forgetting himself registered in this Self-Financing Scheme. Accordingly reservation letter was issued in favour of the complainant on 15.10.88. In this reservation letter the cost of the house was made payable by four instalments of Rs. 38,750/-. As the complainant had already deposited an amount of Rs. 4,600/- and Rs. 10,000/- for getting himself registered, this amount was adjusted and the amount of first instalment was fixed as Rs. 24,150/-. This first instalment was made payable on 14.12.88. The remaining three instalments of Rs. 38,750/- each were made payable on 14.4.89, 14.10.89 and 14.4.90. The complainant deposited the first instalment amount of Rs. 24,150/- on 14.12.88. The second instalment was deposited on 15.4.89 of Rs. 38,750/-. The third instalment amount was deposited on 8.6.90. It may here be mentioned that by letter dated 6.9.89 (Annex. 17) the opposite party had extended the date of payment of third and fourth instalments to 14.4.90 and 14.10.90 respectively. The complainant was ready to deposit the fourth instalment Rs. 38,750/- but the same was not accepted by the opposite party.

THE complainant''s case further is that the opposite parry issued a letter dated 23.1.93 make revised reservation for M.I.G. flat in favour of the complainant. In this revised reservation letter dated 23.1.93, the estimated cost of the house was increased from Rs. 1,55,000/- to Rs. 4,55,000/-. After giving credit to the amount deposited by the complainant, he was required to pay the balance amount in four instalments. THE first instalment was fixed at Rs. 73,738/- and the remaining three instalments were of Rs. 88,338/- each payable on 15.7.93, 15.1.94 and 15.7.94. THE complainant is aggrieved from this revised reservation letter dated 23.1.93 whereby the earlier reservation was revised and the delivery of the house was also postponed. The entire version of the Rajasthan Housing Board in its reply is that although it had issued an option letter to the complainant to allot to him a house on the basis of Self-Financing Scheme within two years and the complainant had exercised the option for Self-Financing house, but the house could not be allotted to the complainant because the Jawahar Nagar Samiti had filed a writ petition in the High Court (Writ Petition No. 4208/88) and in that writ petition the High Court had passed stay order restraining the Rajasthan Housing Board from making construction of houses on land reserved for Parks and Schools. On account of this stay order, the Housing Board could not construct the houses and could not make allotment in pursua of the reservation made by letter dated 15.10.88. It is not in dispute that the complainant had deposited the various amounts alleged by him and the three instalments. On account of the above stay order the opposite parry issued a revised letter dated 23.1.93 whereby the previous reservation was cancelled and the complainant was required to deposit a total amount of Rs. 4,55,000/- in instalments as already mentioned above. It is said that merely by reservation, the complainant did not become entitled to the allotment of a house and was not a consumer.

We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have gone through the evidence. It is an admitted position that the Rajasthan Housing Board itself had issued letter (Annexure-3) to the complainant giving him option to have a house on Self-Financing Scheme. On the basis of Annexure-3, the complainant exercised his option in time and deposited the necessary registration charges of Rs. 10,000/-. Reservation letter was also issued in his favour on 15.10.88 and deposited the first three instalments in accordance with the reservation letter dated 15.10.88 and was ready to deposit fourth instalment. The Rajasthan Housing Board stucked him to make the fourth deposit. Ultimately it issued a revised reservation letter on 23.1.93 wherein the price of the house was increased to Rs. 4,55,000/- in place of the earlier price of Rs. 1,55,000/- as per earlier reservation.

THE Rajasthan Housing Board has not produced the stay order alleged to have been issued by the Rajasthan High Court. Assuming that the Rajasthan High Court had issued a stay order in Civil Writ Petition No. 4208/88 restraining the Housing Board from constructing houses on the land reserved for Parks and Schools, the Housing Board was bound to inform the complainant about its inability to allot to the complainant the house on Self-Financing Scheme within two years. THE complainant on his part was regularly depositing the instalments as fixed in the reservation letter dated 15.10.88. THE original estimated price at the time of the reservation was made on 15.10.88 was Rs. 1,55,000/-. It was the Housing Board which was utterly negligent in not informing the complainant about its inability to fulfil the obligation of allotting a house reserving in favour of the complainant within two years as stipulated. It was also the clear negligence of the Rajasthan Housing Board if it was going to construct houses on the land reserved for Parks and Schools and it was restrained by the Rajasthan High Court from doing so. THE complainant is bound to accept the terms and conditions mentioned in the revised letter dated 23.1.93 by which the cost has been increased to Rs. 4,55,000/- and its delivery postponed even after July, 94. The only question there remains is as to what relief should be granted to the complainant. Clearly the house for the complainant could not be constructed on account of the alleged stay order. Till the Housing Board now constructs a house for the complainant, naturally its price will be higher than the price which he was to pay under the reservation dated 15.10.88. The complainant has suffered because the opposite party did not intimate to the complainant about its inability to construct the house within 2 years and continued to accept the three instalments fixed under the reservation letter dated 15.10.88. There was therefore deficiency in service on the part of the Rajasthan Housing Board. It was the duty of the Housing Board to have informed the complainant about its inability to construct the house and to refund the amount deposited by the complainant or to stop him from making the deposits of the instalments. The complainant had deposited a total amount of Rs. 1,16,250/- with the Rajasthan Housing Board and this amount has remained with the Housing Board since the dates of deposits i.e. 14.12.88, 14.4.89 and 14.10.89. The registration amount of Rs. 4,600/- and Rs. 10,000/- were deposited even earlier. The complainant is therefore entitled to the refund of a total amount of Rs. 1,16,250/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the respective deposits till payment.

WE, therefore, partly allow this complaint and direct the Rajasthan Housing Board to pay to the complainant a total amount of Rs. 1,16,250/- deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @18% per annum with effect from the date of deposits various amounts made by the complainant till its payment. Complaint allowed.