Rajasthan Housing Board vs Ram Babu Gupta

-HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the application for condonation of delay as well as on merits.

IT is mentioned in the application for condonation of delay that judgment was delivered on 17. 10. 2006 and certified copy was obtained on 30. 10. 2006. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. N. Mudgal did not inform the Officers of the Housing Board that appeal was dismissed by the State Commission on 17. 10. 2006 and certified copy was lying with him. Shri G. S. Bagela, Resident Engineer, Division-V, Alwar, fell ill and remained on leave from 9. 11. 2006 to 16. 10. 2006, 29. 11. 2006 to 23. 12. 2006 and 15. 1. 2007 to 26. 1. 2007. Consequently, no step could be taken for contacting the Advocate. On 18. 1. 2007 Shri G. S. Gupta, Project Engineer (Sr.) obtained the copy from the Counsel, Mr. P. N. Mudgal. On 25. 1. 2007, opinion of the Director Law, Rajasthan Housing Board was taken. The Director Law gave his opinion on 27. 2. 2007 and, thereafter revision petition was filed. This application is not supported by any document whatsoever. Even ordinary precaution has not been kept by filing affidavit. However, seeing that there is delay of 52 days and the fact of illness of Shri G. S. Bagela as mentioned in para 3 of the application, we allow the application for condonation of delay and the delay is condoned.

In this matter, brief facts are that the complainant-Ram Babu Gupta applied for purchase of house on 29. 12. 1982 by depositing Rs. 3,000 as registration fee. On 9. 5. 1985 after delay of nearly 2 years, the petitioner had issued one provisional registration card to complainant mentioning registration No. 680 category of MIG first resident type on hire purchase. On 7. 1. 1986 the petitioner had issued serial No. 00308 to the complainant. Thereafter no information was given regarding allotment of house uptil 1989 despite several requests made by the complainant. In response to the letter 15. 12. 1989 of the petitioner, the complainant had deposited Rs. 18,000 with the petitioner on 11. 1. 1990, 12. 7. 1990 and 10. 1. 1991 and 12. 1. 1990. Thereafter no information was given despite letters of the complainant dated 15. 10. 1991, 3. 8. 1992, 17. 9. 1992, 7. 12. 1992, 29. 7. 1993 and 31. 3. 1994. The petitioner issued one letter No. 367 dated 30. 5. 1994 asking for the option of House No. 2/109 NEB, Vistar Yojna, Alwar in which it was asked to take the house in the condition as it was. The complainant accepted the offer though it was not the promised completed house. It was just a structure.

THOUGH it was alleged by the petitioner that letter dated 20. 11. 1992 giving option to the complainant was sent yet it remains unproved that it was actually issued to the complainant. It may be mentioned that if such a letter was issued and the letter was sent to the complainant on 7. 12. 1992 asking for allotment of house in the scheme then either the respondent would have promptly replied or then it could be said that they sought the option, which was not given. Since persons were not willing to take just a structure nor built house as was promised was ready, another option was given on 30. 5. 1994. This was accepted. The petitioner failed to produce even the affidavit in support of its written statement. The complainant filed the complaint for directing the Board to deliver the possession of house No. 2/109, NEB Vistar Yojana with 18% interest on the deposited amount and compensation of Rs. 1 lac for mental agony and financial loss with cost of Rs. 5,500.

IN the aforesaid circumstances, the District Forum on filing of the complaint took the view that it was an admitted position that house No. 2/109, NEB Vistar Yojna Alwar had been allotted. Due to unexplained reasons, house had not been completed and opposite party asked for the option for allotment of the house as it was. The District Forum also took the view that after allotment the petitioner could not ask for any option and the petitioner has unnecessarily delayed the allotment of house and there was deficiency in service and on account of deficiency in service of the petitioner, the petitioner could not charge any amount higher than what was prevailing on the date of allotment in the year 1992 in which houses were allotted to other allottees. The District Forum has also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000 along with direction to issue amended allotment letter to the complainant regarding House No. 2/109, NEB Vistaar Yojna, Alwar. On appeal, the State Commission noted that there was delay in delivery of possession. It also found that in response to the options sought by the petitioner, the complainant gave the option but the allotment letter was issued. In the light of the facts noted above, the deficiency in rendering service is on the face of record firstly the promised complete house was to be allotted within the reasonable time from 29. 12. 1982, that reasonable time could not be sought by 10 years. Secondly, the incomplete house was offered indicating that house remained incomplete and it amounted deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-Board. Thirdly, the petitioner could not show requisite sensitivity by not responding to the letter sent by the petitioner mentioned hereinabove and this itself amounts to deficiency in service after taking option and taking the entire money by 1994.

ONE of the grounds of revision petition is that the District Forum was wrong in mentioning that no affidavit was filed while data was filed. No copy of the affidavit has been produced even for our perusal for the reasons best known to the petitioner. Thus, the case of the petitioner could not be said to have been established before the District Forum.

COPY of the letter dated 20. 11. 1992 does not indicate any endorsement about the fact that notice was to be delivered in person or through registered post or how it was sent. Just making a bald statement that letter dated 20. 11. 1992 was sent, would not be sufficient. Besides, if this letter remained in the file of the petitioner, it would be ineffective. There is no endorsement as to how it was required to be sent. The serial No. 367 does not explain whether it was sent or not or remained in file of the petitioner. However, letter dated 30. 5. 1992 was received by the complainant in terms of para 5 and the complainant had accepted the aforesaid option to take house. But the house was not allotted and the complainant would mot have continued to reside in a rented house since at least 1992 for he was not having any house of his own. It is not in dispute according to the reply filed by the respondent itself that because of unavoidable circumstances, house had not been constructed fully as mentioned in para 5 of the reply. The letter dated 23. 5. 1996 mentions as under: "due to some reasons the aforesaid house could not be completed, therefore your option had been requested for you to take the aforesaid house in the present in-complete condition. It is also informed to you that in case of your non consent regarding allotment of house "where it is as it is" in incomplete condition, proceedings will be done to complete the house according to the present policy of Board, and allotment letter will be issued after completing rest of work and assessing the cost. "

It may be mentioned that complaint itself was filed in the year 1997 and reply to the same was filed on 14. 7. 1998.

THE point of completing the house has not been taken care of neither by the District Forum nor by the State Commission. The State Commission had passed similar order. The rent which the petitioner would have paid has also not been taken care of. If we see the order passed by the State Commission directing the petitioner to allot the house to the complainant at the same rate at which house had been allotted to other allottees by the appellant from 20. 11. 1997 to 23. 5. 1996, there was nothing wrong. Deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner was writ large in not completing the construction within a reasonable time, making an offer to allot just an structure, and even after exercise of the option, in not allotting the even incomplete house, in the form of structure. Seeing the aforesaid circumstances, we feel that impugned order is substantially just and equitable and no interference is called for.

WE before parting with the order, we would expect that in future, the petitioner would ensure that correctly translated copies are filed along with vernacular version itself to avoid unnecessary adjournments and to list the matter twice for admission hearing purpose. Seeing the deficiency in service and the way wrongly translated version was filed, we were inclined to impose exemplary cost but in view of difficulties pointed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the assurance given by learned Counsel that we would not face these kinds of problems in future, we are avoiding to impose exemplary cost. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. R. P. dismissed.