Rajasthan Housing Board vs BAJRANG LAL SHARMA

THIS revision is directed against the order dated 25.8.2003 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur allowing appeal against the order dated 25.4.196 of a District Forum and directing the petitioner/opposite party-Board to delivery possession of house No. 5/312 in Malviya Nagar Scheme to the respondent/complainant on his making payment of Rs. 3,68,934 and submitting the necessary documents.

IN short, the facts giving rise to this revision are these. IN order to purchase a residential house in Janta INcome Group Category, the respondent submitted application on 13.11.1973 alongwith registration amount of Rs. 100 with the petitioner-Board. IN view of change in income, the respondent applied for change in category of the house in the year 1980 and again in 1981 and deposited the amount as demanded by the petitioner-Board for change in category. On 1.5.1987, the petitioner informed the respondent that a house in MIG B category had been reserved for him and he was asked to deposit the seed money in two installments of Rs. 6,000/- each which he deposited on 10.9.1987 and 16.12.1987. IN the draw of lots held on 17.10.1987, house No. 10/73 in Mansarovar Scheme was allotted by the petitioner to allot a house in Malviya Nagar Scheme of the same category. On the recommendation of Public Allotment Committee, the respondent was allotted house No. 13/35 in Malviya Nagar Scheme sometime in the year 1988. On possession of this house not being given, the respondent alleging deficiency in service filed complaint dated 15.6.1992 before the District Forum claiming possession of the said house and compensation. Complaint was contested by the petitioner-Board. It was, inter alia, alleged that on verification, it was revealed that house No. 13/35 in Malviya Nagar Scheme had already been allotted to one J.S. Johri and possession thereof also handed over to him. Allotment letter dated 10.9.1992 for another house No. 5.312 in Malviya Nagar Scheme had been issued to the respondent. District Forum dismissed the complaint. On that order being challenged by the respondent, the appeal was disposed of by the State Commission in the manner noticed above. Submission advanced by Mr. Narottam Vyas for the Board was that the complaint filed by respondent was barred by limitation; facts in F.A. No. 1731 of 1994, Yudhistra Saxena v. Rajasthan Housing Board, on which reliance was placed by the State Commission had acted erroneously in holding that petitioner is not entitled to charge any amount on the sale consideration of Rs. 3,68,934 from the respondent. As regards plea of limitation, after allotment of house No. 13/35 in Malviya Nagar Scheme in April 1988, the respondent had been pressing the petitioner to handover possession of that house and on the petitioner''s failure to give possession thereof, complaint was filed on 15.6.1996. It was only in the written version that the petitioner-Board came with the plea that said house No. 13/35 had already been allotted to one J.S. Johri and possession thereof given to him and petitioner had issued allotment letter of another house No. 5/312 in Malviya Nagar Scheme on 10.9.1992 to the respondent. In that backdrop, date of allotment of said house No. 13/35 cannot be taken as starting point of limitation for the purpose of limitation and complaint must be held to have been filed within limitation period.

Coming to later limb of submission referred to above, the copy of order in Yudhister Saxena''s case (supra) in appeal is placed at pp 26-27 in Volume I. It was pointed out by Mr. Vyas that house allotted to Yudhister Saxena was under Parijat Yojana whereas house allotted to respondent was in General Registration Scheme 1979. Bare perusal of order dated 9.9.2002 in Yudhister Saxena''s case would show that same was passed on the basis of concession made by the Counsel of petitioner that re-allotment of house No. 3/180 to Mr. Saxena may be made on depositing the balance amount of Rs. 3,40,343 as per allotment letter dated 11.9.1995. Thus, that order being based on concession and being in respect of house in a diffrernece shceme could not have been made the foundation for passing the impugned order by the State Commission as rightly pointed out by Mr. Vyas. Respondent cannot evade payment of interest. To be only noted that aforementioned amount of Rs. 3,68,934 did not include interest. Obviously, on allotment of house 10/73 in Mansarovar scheme, the respondent had lost priority in the matter of allotment of house in Malviya Nagar Scheme. Order of State Commission notices the statement made by the Counsel of petitioner that possession of said house No. 5/312 could be given to the respondent only on depositing a sum of Rs. 11,68,824. Details of this amount was not furnished to the respondents. During the pendency of this revision, the petitioner sent a letter dated 6.4.2005 to the respondent wherein total amount of Rs. 8,99,570 is shown to be payable after allowing deduction of the amount of Rs. 3,68,934 deposited by him with the Board on 9.6.2004. Break-up of that total amount which is material, is reproduced below : "Add-Interest @ 24% w.e.f. 10.12.1992 to 30.6.1993 (204 days) for non-payment of due amount of Rs 3,68,934/- upto 9.12.1992 Rs. 49,488 Add-Interest @ 20% w.e.f. 1.7.1993 to 5.2.2003 (3870 days) Rs. 7,82,343 Add-Interest @ 18% w.e.f. 6.2.2004 to 8.6.2004 (123 days) Rs. 22,379 Due to non-submission of documents i.e., acceptance letter, affidavit, under-taking, hence, penaltyas per rules charged w.e.f. 10.12.1992 to 14.5.2005 (total dues 10 per day x 4536 days) Rs. 45,360 Total : Rs. 8,99,570"

IN our view, charging of interest @ 24%, 20%, 18% and also charging amount of Rs. 45,360 on account of non-submission of documents by the petitioner-Board is totally uncalled for and in the facts and circumstances of case, it would be just and properthat respondent pays interest @ 12% p.a. (simple) from 10.12.1992, the date of allotment letter upto 9.6.2004 on which he deposited Rs. 3,68,934 as ordered by the State Commission. Thus, the order under challenge in so far as it relates to not making payment of interest (charge) cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, while partly allowing revision, part of the impugned order referred to in the preceding para is set aside. Respondent will deposit interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs. 3,68,934/- from 10.12.1992 to 9.6.2004 and also submit documents referred to as Serial No. 6 in para No. 3 of the letter dated 6.4.2005 with the petitioner-Board within six weeks from today. On depositing that amount and filing documents the petitioner-Board within six weeks from today. On depositing that amount and filing documents the petitioner-Board will hand over possession of said house No. 5/312 in Malviya Nagar Scheme to the respondent within two weeks. No order as to cost. R.P. partly allowed.