Rajasthan Housing Board vs HARSH SWARUP MATHUR

THIS revision petition arises out of an order passed by the State Commission remanding the matter to the District Forum who has allowed the petition in execution.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant, Shri H.S. Mathur had applied for a MIG House in September, 1991 but no allotment could be made as the file was misplaced. Finally a house was allotted on 3.11.1993 but its possession was not given even though others, junior to him were allotted house and given possession. In these circumstances, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for direction to be given to the petitioner/O.P. to give possession of the house and charge the prevailing price of 1993 and a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The District Forum heard the parties and passed order directing the petitioner to give possession of the house within two months and also awarded cost of Rs. 1,000/-. It is important to note that firstly no written version was filed by the petitioner/O.P. before the District Forum and secondly no appeal was filed by the petitioner - thus lending finality to the order passed by the District Forum. When the possession was not given as ordered by the District Forum, the complainant moved a petition for execution of the order and for starting contempt proceedings against the petitioner and again praying that this complainant be charged 1993 price of the house allotted to him. The District Forum after hearing both the parties clarified that the price to be charged by the petitioner shall be the price prevailing in 1993 for the allotted house and dismissed the issue relating to initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioner. Against this order the petitioner went in appeal wherein the State Commission passed the following order : "We would however, observe that since order dated 22.2.1999 had not been enforced, the Forum must have proceeded to enforce that order as a decree of a Civil Court is executed. A decree of a Civil Court is executed in the matter as laid down in the C.P.C. In other words a decree may be executed either by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor or attachment and sale of his property. In that sense of the matter, we would set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Forum to do the needful in the matter stated above. Cost on parties."

It is on these circumstances that this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Rajasthan Housing Board.

It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission erred in passing the above order. The petitioner is a public body. It is the District Forum who failed to give clear direction in its original order passed on 22.2.1999 as to which year''s price is to be charged. Normal understanding is that price of that year is charged in which the order is passed. The order of the State Commission is bad, hence need to be set aside.

WE have seen the record and heard the arguments. Basic facts are not disputed. It is important to note that while the complainant had specially asked for possession of the allotted house at 1993 price, it was not rebutted as no written version was filed by the O.P. Only thing mentioned by them (the O.Ps.) at this stage of arguments is that if the complainant makes full payment of house and complete the formalities, possession shall be given. The District Forum passed the same in the order, which became final. The District Forum, in our view, rightly passed order on the execution petition that price of 1993 was to be charged. The complainant applied in 1981, file is misplaced in the office of O.P., allotment of house was made in November, 1993. By no stretch of imagination the complainant could be expected to pay the current price. At the appellate stage, instead of settling the issue, to remand the case for detention or attachment of property of O.P. in our view is not a correct response. Consumer Forums in their summary jurisdiction should move to help settle the matter at the earliest; detention of any officer or attachment of property are neither required nor will help to meet the ends of justice in the present case. What the consumer wants is a house at 1993 price. WE should work in that direction. WE are unable to sustain the order of State Commission hence is set aside. The order of the District Forum is restored. No orders on costs. Revision Petition allowed.