Rakesh Jhunjhunwala vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

PETITIONER aspirant for allotment of a house for middle income group ''B'' in Kalptaru Scheme launched by respondent Board, made deposit of Rs. 6,000 on 11.12.1991 for registration of his candidature. Subsequently he also made deposit of Rs. 10,000 for allotment of a house for MIG-B Category in Parijat Scheme. A reservation letter was accordingly issued to the petitioner by respondent Board on 30.4.1993. The allotment of house in Malviya Nagar, Jaipur was eventually made to the petitioner by Board on 21.3.2005 with cost of Rs. 8,30,495 and on adjustment of the deposits made by petitioner and also the interest to which he was eligible, petitioner, along with aforesaid allotment letter was asked to make deposit of Rs. 4,61,707. This made the petitioner aggrieved for filing a consumer complaint with District Forum. The District Forum on evaluation of pleadings of parties having misdirected itself quashed the allotment letter issued by Board directing them to issue fresh amended allotment letter. Board was also made answerable to allot house to the petitioner on a rate prevailing on 30.4.1993 when allotment of house was made to him. Other ancillary direction too was issued in the aforesaid order. The finding of District Forum being adverse to the respondent Board, latter took up matter in appeal. State Commission nicely appreciating issues in its correct perspective, while setting aside order of District Forum, accepted appeal of Board. Aggrieved petitioner is now in revision.

PETITIONER has a lot of grievances against belated allotment of house by respondent Board that too not under Parijat Scheme for which he was aspirant. Yet other grievance of petitioner was that since draw of lottery for allotment of house to aspirants was made by Housing Board on 22.2.1994, allottees were liable only to pay cost of the house which was in vogue on that date. Added to this, since payment of all instalments was made by petitioner by 1994 the cost of house prevalent on that day was most appropriate consideration which petitioner is liable to pay. It was contended that though respondent Board was under obligation in terms of agreement to allot house to allottees within two years, belated allotment of house after afflux of 11 years evidently itself puts the Board in wrong box making them liable to pay compensation and also interest @ 20% p.a. on deposits made by petitioner. Yet other grievance of petitioner is that even though house bearing No. 6/422 which was allotted to him was incomplete and unfit for human habilitation, petitioner was forced to acknowledge offer and in all fairness cost of the house should not have been more than Rs. 2,30,495 which was shown in brochure.

THE communication which was issued to petitioner by respondent Board on 30.4.1993 was simply a reservation letter which was construed to be an allotment letter under mistaken perception by petitioner. There is no gain saying the fact that tentative cost of the house was Rs. 2,30,495 but it was merely a tentative cost subject to finally determined by the Board while allotting house to allottees. It was only on 21.3.2005 that after finally calculating the cost of the house, allotment letter was issued to petitioner indicating cost of the house to be Rs. 8,30,495 and on adjustment of deposits made by petitioner and also interest to which he was eligible, he was called upon by the Board to pay cost Rs. 4,61,707. Board acted fairly in awarding admissible interest on deposits made by petitioner in conformity with terms and conditions of agreement and it would be profitable to put extract of those terms and conditions of agreement which is as follows: "If the allottee has not committed any fault in depositing the instalments then the Board shall handover possession of the house to the allottee withina period of two years. If the Board does not handover possession of the house within this period then after two years till the date of issuance of the possession letter, the allottee shall be paid interest @ 6% p.a. on the total deposited amount because the maximum part of this amount would be invested by the Board in construction of the house."

TRUE it is that the houses on accomplishment were to be handed over to the aspirant allottees within a period of two years, the defence of Board had been that under forcing circumstances cut off period did not materialize which makes Board answerable to pay interest at the rate stipulated in agreement. Board in agreement itself has taken liability for award of interest @ 6% p.a. on deposits made by allottees in case there was delay in making delivery of the house within a period of two years. The Board has acted in terms of agreement and has made adjustment of interest for which petitioner had become eligible for not handing over possession of the house within a period of two years. The State Commission has taken notice of all these happenings and rightly did not find fault with Board. Once petitioner is a party to contract terms of which bind both the parties, it is not permissible for the parties or even Consumer Fora to stretch those terms and conditions beyond expression which the party meant while putting words in contract. We may refer to a decision of Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Bihar State Housing Board v. Arun Dakshy, IV (2005) CPJ 12 (SC)=VI (2005) SLT 381, in which it was held that when rate of interest has been determined by parties, the Consumer Fora cannot direct the party to make payment of interest contrary to the rate of interest agreed by parties. There is no gain saying the fact that cost of house which the allottee would be liable, is the cost prevailing at the time of issuance of allotment letter, unless the allotment letter enjoins otherwise, and on this score too we may refer to a decision of Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of DDA v. Pushpendra Kumar Jain, 56 (1994) DLT 408 (SC)=JT 1994 (6) SC 294. Relief sought by petitioner for award of interest @ 20% was evidently contrary to terms of agreement even when there was belated allotment of the house. Petitioner had purchased house in question in a public auction and while accepting offer made by the Board, he had given his consent too on 9.8.2004 to accept offer on the basis of "as is where is". Now he is estopped from raising grievance about deficiency in construction of house. Since petitioner had also opted for house in Parijat Scheme, allotment of house No. 6/422, Jaipur which was under Parijat Scheme was not in violation of option exercised by petitioner. The statutory bodies like Housing Board are constituted for development of planned construction of house, meant to provide residence to downtrodden, middle class without commercial construction and this is not expected of them that they would fulfil obligations running loss for which ultimately general public has to be taxed. There being no infirmity in the finding of State Commission, it is affirmed, dismissing revision petition, which bears no merit. However, there will be no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.