Rajasthan Housing Board And Ors. vs Om Prakash Srivastava (Dr.)

RAJASTHAN Housing Board -petitioner herein, who was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bikaner, Rajasthan (herein referred to as the District Forum'' for short) has filed the present revision petition.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are: Complainant -Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava -respondent herein applied for allotment of residential house of H.I.G. Category with the petitioner under the "General Registration Scheme". Petitioner, by its letter dated 30.4.1993, informed the respondent that he has been allotted House No. 9/35 in their Mukta Prasad Nagar Colony at Bikaner under "Hire Purchase Scheme" and required him to deposit Rs. 18,968 on or before 14.6.1993 in addition what had already been deposited by him. He was also directed to pay monthly instalments of Rs. 3,742 each and submit certain documents. Respondent/complainant deposited the said amount of Rs. 18,968 on 28.5.1993 and 14 monthly instalments regularly. According to him, he had completed all the formalities. Respondent, in all, paid Rs. 1,89,986 but the possession of the house in question was not delivered to him on the plea that he had not executed the "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement" in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board.

BEING aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum stating therein that he did not submit the "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement" because in the letter dated 30.4.1993, the petitioner -Housing Board had not indicated that he was required to execute the "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement" and the said condition was not applicable to his case. Petitioners entered appearance and filed their written statement. In the written statement, petitioners did not dispute the main features of the complainant''s case. They opposed the complaint on the sole ground that the possession of the house in question could not be given to the respondent as the petitioner failed to execute "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement" in favour of the petitioner -Housing Board. Execution of the "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement" was a condition precedent for delivery of possession as per Rules and Regulations framed by the Housing Board and the undertaking given by the respondent. District Forum did not find any merit in the above plea raised by the petitioners and allowed the complaint. It, accordingly, directed the petitioner to deliver the actual physical possession of the allotted house to the respondent and pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 by way of compensation for mental agony and non -enjoyment of the possession of the allotted house plus Rs. 500 as cost of litigation.

BEING aggrieved, petitioners as well as the respondent/complainant filed appeals before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission'' for short). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent primarily on the ground that in the allotment letter dated 30.4.1993, the petitioner had not specified that the respondent is required to execute "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement". The letter simply stated that "complainant/allottee was required to submit the documents". There was no mention of the "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement". It was further held that even the format of such "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement" had not been produced by the petitioner. Accordingly, the State Commission directed the petitioner to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount of Rs. 81,468 for registration Rs. 12,500, for seed money Rs. 50,000, Rs. 18,968 demanded with the letter of allotment from 15.6.1993 and on amount of the instalments from the dates of their deposits with the Rajasthan Housing Board till the date of delivery of possession of the allotted house to the complainant with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000.

BEING aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, petitioners have filed the present revision petition.

COUNSEL for the petitioner states that the possession of the house in question has already been delivered to the respondent in the year 1996 which fact has not been disputed before us.

PETITIONER had moved an application before this Commission for permission to produce the undertaking given by the petitioner on 3.6.1993 duly notarized by way of additional evidence to the effect that he would execute the "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement" before the possession of the tenement is handed over to him, which was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 as costs on 31.8.2007.

COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length.

WE have perused the letter of allotment. State Commission is right in observing that in the letter of allotment, it is not mentioned that the complainant is required to furnish the duly executed "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement". To that extent, the observation of the State Commission is correct.

RESPONDENT has not denied execution of the undertaking dated 3.6.1993 given by him. It clearly stipulates that the allottee shall execute the "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement" before handing over the possession to him. It was executed by the respondent on 3.6.1993 and it cannot be accepted that he did not know about the requirement of execution of the "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement".

COUNSEL for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the letter dated 22.8.1994 written by the petitioner -Housing Board to the respondent informing that since the respondent had not executed the "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement" in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board, the possession letter could not be issued to him. This letter was received by the respondent but he neither replied to the same nor did he execute the "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement" in favour of the petitioner -Housing Board. We have perused Rules 22 and 36 of the Rajasthan Housing Board (Disposal of Property) Regulations, 1970, which requires the execution of the "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement" in case the property is allotted under the "Hire Purchase Scheme". It is not disputed before us that the house in question was allotted to the respondent under the "Hire Purchase Scheme". The fact remains that the respondent himself had executed the undertaking duly notarized on 3.6.1993 to execute the "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement" before the possession was handed over to him. He was informed by the petitioner -Housing Board vide letter dated 22.8.1994 to execute the "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement" in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board but the respondent neither executed the "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement" nor replied to the said letter.

UNDER the circumstances, the order passed by the State Commission directing the petitioners to pay interest on the deposited amount cannot be sustained because, the possession of the house could not be handed over to the respondent till the execution of the "Hire Purchase Agreement" by the respondent. Respondent himself had given the undertaking and, in spite of being reminded, he did not execute the "Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement". Thus, the fault, to a large extent, lay with the respondent for the delay in the delivery of possession of the house to him. Accordingly, the direction of the State Commission to the petitioners to pay interest, is set aside.

THE revision petition is disposed of with the above modifications in the Order of the State Commission. No costs. R.P. disposed of.