RATAN KUMAR THAKUR vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

THE complainant got himself registered under MIG ''A'' for allotment of a house under General Registration Scheme, 1979 dated Oct. 1 to Jan. 1980. His number was H8/2895/JPR/MI79/5134. His name was registered vide Anx. 1 dated 26.10.80. THE opposite parties changed the procedure in the year 1981 and invited option for conversion from MIG ''A'' to MIG ''B''. THE complainant submitted application and gave his option and deposited extra sum of Rs. 800/- on 26.5.82. THE name of the complainant was registered as MIG ''B'' and number allotted was 32341. On 28.6.83 house No. 11/ 76 F.F. Malviya Nagar was allotted to him but according to the complainant he was not given possession until the date of the filing of the complaint, though he had deposited seed money amounting to Rs. 12,000/- with the opposite parties. THE Complainant received letter No. 30 Aa.Aa/JC-1/ 89. 90/518 dated 22.6.89 from the Estate Officer, Division I informing him that on account of unforeseen reasons the house is incomplete and if he wants to take its possession as JAISA HAI USI AWASTHA MAI he may do so within one month. THE complainant went to the office of the opposite party to enquire about the cost of the house JAISA HAI USI AWASTHA MAI then he was told that the cost of house is Rs. 1,15,000/-. THE complainant was surprised to learn this as the possible estimated cost was Rs. 60,000/-. THE complainant alleged that after the issuance of the allotment letter, he got the loan for Rs. 40,000/- sanctioned and withdrew first instalment of Rs. 12,000/- and deposited it as seed money with the opposite parties. As the possession of the house was not delivered to the complainant, the complainant''s balance of loan was cancelled by the Bank and whatever amount was outstanding as loan, he had to pay interest and he was required to pay instalments of Rs. 12,000/- to the Bank. It is said that the house No. 11/76 was allotted to him in 1986 and its possession ought to have been delivered with six months but the opposite parties despite assurance did not deliver the possession. THE complainant came to know that in the Rajasthan Patrika dated 14.10.89 a notice was issued which has been produced by the complainant as Anx. 4 in which it was written that the possession of the house on the existing condition should be taken and consent was sought within three days. THE name of the complainant was shown at S. No. 2. THE complainant came to know about this notice at Kishangarh and it was not possible for him to take any proceedings in this respect at Jaipur. THE complainant has stated that in February, he went to see the house. He found that the house was in dilapidated condition inasmuch as there was no flooring, no kitchen, no bathroom, no latrine ready in it. THEre was no proper light fitting. THE light fitting was not in order. THE material used was of inferior quality. According to the complainant a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- for making the house in a living condition will have to be spent. Thus, the house will cost 1 lacs which cannot be considered as proper. THE complainant has alleged that in accordance with General Registration Scheme, 1979 page 14, 10% of the cost could only be increased of the estimated cost but for that also reasons are necessary. Upto the completion of the house he will be required to pay three times of original estimated the cost. THE opposite parties failed to deliver possession to the complainant and threatened to cancel the registration. It was submitted that there was no provision for allotting the house on flat system and other persons were allotted independent houses. It was said that the house was allotted to the complainant in 1983 but its possession is being delivered in 1990 in dilapidated condition. It was alleged that when the house was allotted in 1990 there is no justification to charge cost prevailing in 1990 and as such there is violation of the conditions mentioned in the General Registration Scheme, 1979. It was averred that whatever measurements were given in the General Registration Scheme, 1979, those measurements have also been reduced and houses have been converted into flat system which is improper. THE complainant submitted that the opposite parties ought to have completed the house within six months but it was not completed. Photos were submitted in support of this. THE complainant has alleged that as the opposite parties did not allot the house in time he is entitled to Rs. 800/- per month as rent. He has also alleged that on account of various acts of commission and omission of the opposite parties, he had to come to the office of the opposite parties from 1983 upto the date of the filing of the complaint atleast for 100 times. All this shows that the service rendered by the opposite parties is deficient and on account of that the complainant has suffered bodily pain and mental agony. THE complainant in his complaint dated 23.3.90 prayed: 1. that the complainant should be allotted an independent house according to the scheme;

THAT the complainant should be allotted a house on payment of Rs. 68,000/- in accordance with 1983 costing; That from 1983 upto the date of the delivery of possession compensation @ 800/- per month amounting to Rs. 67,200/- should be awarded. A sum of Rs. 1,68,000/- may also be awarded for bodily and financial loss @ Rs. 2,000/- per month;

That the opposite parties should be asked to pay interest @ 18% on the deposited amount. 2. The complainant, submitted his affidavit in support of the complaint. The complainant besides submitting the photo stat copies of the registration certificate showing That an application has been received, receipt about the deposit of Rs. 1,500/-, relevant extracts of the conditions of allotment receipts, notification published in the Rajasthan Patrika, the letter dated 28.6.83 received from the opposite parties, certificate dated 14.12.83 received from the opposite parties and the copies of the letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite parties were also submitted. The complainant also gave notice dated Aug. 21,1989 to the opposite parties.

The opposite parties filed the version of the case opposing the complaint. It was admitted That reservation letter dated 28.6.83 was issued to the complainant reserving the house. It was denied That any letter dated 22.6.89 was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant as cost of the house is determined on the basis of the actual cost. It was pleaded That no allotment letter was issued to the complainant but merely a reservation letter was given in pursuance of which seed money was deposited. It was denied That House No. 11/76 Malviya Nagar was allotted to the complainant and That allotment letter was issued to him. According to the opposite parties merely reservation letter was issued. It was submitted by the opposite parties That in response to letter dated 22.6.89 and the notification, the complainant did not give his consent and as such allotment-cum-possession latter was not issued. It was specifically stated That the registration of the complainant is still existing and will exist and as soon as the house is available in any other colony, then on the basis of the priority house will be allotted on the basis of the actual cost. The main plea was That as the complainant did not give his consent neither allotment letter was issued nor possession was delivered. It was submitted That the opposite parties are not bound to deliver the house on the basis of the measurements nor of the pattern for which the scheme was published. The complainant cannot insist for the allotment of the house in accordance with the specification laid down in the Scheme.

Arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard. We have carefully considered the complaint, the version of the case, affidavits filed by the complainant in support of the complaint and the documents on record. There is no allotment-cum-possession letter in favour of the complainant on record. The letter dated 28.6.83 is merely a reservation letter in respect of House No. 11/76 F.F. Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. The certificate dated 14.12.83 amongst others contains the following:

"3. That the Board will have no objection to the mortgaged of the tenement allotted to him to the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in case of purchase by the allottee on out-right bale basis i.e. on the payment of the entire price in lumpsum. If necessary for the recovery of arrears the S.B.B.J. may sell the house, no mortgaged with it and the Rajasthan Housing Board will have no objection to it. However the Board should be informed of such action.

That the Conveyance/Lease deed will be executed immediately on receiving the full payment of the house.

THAT the possession will be given on receiving the disposal price amounting to Rs. 68,520/- approx. (including Rs. 2,300/- already deposited as registration amount). That the first floor will be built by the allottee and not the Rajasthan Housing Board." The reservation letter cannot be construed as an allotment letter. Letter dated 22.6.89 issued by the Estate Manager merely mentioned that the house was not complete and it is likely to take some time and so it is not possible to handover the possession. If the complainant wants to take the possession as it is (JAISA HAI USI A WASTHA MAI) he should give a consent letter within one month so that proceedings may be taken. By the letter dated 12.7.89 the complainant stated that in the absence of the required information he is not in a position to send his consent and he wanted to know the total cost of the house allotted and when will it be given possession of. The complainant has not filed any affidavit after the filing of the version of the case or produced any evidence by examining any witness on oath in support of the complaint. The objections which the complainant has raised in the complaint were raised before us in several cases and they were considered in Kanhaiyalal Mathur v. Housing Board RLT 90 Part III 31 and subsequent decisions. It was observed in Kanhaiyalal'' s case (supra) as under: "Before we proceed further, it may be mentioned that in Jyoti Prakash v. The Rajasthan Housing Board 1979 WLN (UC) 101, it has been held that the Registration Schemes and the Allotment Schemes are distinguishable and no right of allotment of house is conferred on any applicants registered under the Registration Scheme and they cannot challenge the scheme. It was held in 1985 WLN (UC) 266 by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court that the Board is competent to increase the price beyond ceiling in certain circumstances and one is, increase in the cost of construction. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1625/86 Deep Chand v. Rajasthan Housing Board, decided on 24.9.86 the Housing Board Registration Scheme, 1979 was considered. It was held that the reservation is after only allotment and registration and reservations cannot be equated. No right accrued to the complainant for the allotment of the house by Housing Board Scheme, July/ September 1973."

It was affirmed in Kanhaiyalal Mathur v. R.H.B. I (1991) CPJ 37 (NC)=1991 CSMR CAS 118. The National Commission observed: "As has been pointed out by the State COMMISSION the allotment scheme has to be distinguished from the registration scheme and no right of allotment to a house is conferred on any applicant by mere registration under a registration scheme. Registration and reservation of allotment cannot be equated and reservation of accommodation follows allotment. Consequently, the State Commission has rightly observed that no right accrued to the complainant for the allotment of a house by the Housing Board on registration of the appellant in 1973 et. seq. in the various draws made under the registration allotment schemes introduced from time to the name of the appellant did not figure in the draws made for allotment. There was no contractual obligation on the part of the Board to allot a house to the appellant."

The Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 451/1987 decided on 16.7.87 ruled as under "A number of petitions of a similar nature have came up before this Court, and this Court Came to the conclusion that mere registration does not entitle the applicant to get the house allotted at a price mentioned in the book-let. The allotment of the house has to be at the price when the house is allotted. It is well known that there is escalation of the prices and the price of the house which would have been in the year 1981 when the registration was held out cannot be the same in the year 1985-86. The petitioner cannot be said to have been given any assurance that the house shall be allotted to him at a price of Rs. 1,11,900/- which was mentioned in the booklet in the year 1981. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is hardly attracted in the present case as no assurance can be said to have been given that the house shall be allotted to him at a price of Rs. 1,11,900/-."

IT was held in AIR 1980 SC 738 that the petitioners grievance that the authority was not entitled to give discriminatory treatment by collecting surcharge as component of price in sale of flats constructed under the MIG Scheme. IT was further held that the State had its agency entering into contractual field then the relations are not governed by the constitutional provision and no question arises of violation of the constitutional provisions including Art. 14. Reference may be made to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1621/86 decided by the Rajasthan High Court on 24.9.86. IT was observed: "Mr. Sharma has submitted before me that Housing Board Registration Scheme, 1979. In that very clause it has been mentioned that as far as practicable the rates shall not be changed after reservation. The reservation is after only allotment; registration and reservation cannot be equated. This very rule provides that the rates can be revised looking to the increase in the costs. Mr. Sharma submits that it can be raised only upto 10 per cent, it is true that prices have not increased after reservation but after registration, In the registration estimated costs is given and the increasing cost cannot be over looked. There is no case of hostile discrimination and the persons allotted have been treated equally and on the same amount. Even if there is a dispute about the increased rate, it can be agitated before the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction where the disputed question of facts can be determined, such as, what is the increase has rightly been assessed or not and, if assessed, whether it has rightly been applied or not, can only be considered by the Competent Court of civil jurisdiction as in such case the disputed questions of facts are involved."

The complainant failed to give the consent and that is why the allotment was not made to him. It cannot be construed as negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The amount which was claimed was in accordance with the Housing Board (Disposal of Property) Regulations, 1970. The complainant was not right in insisting that he should be allotted the house at the cost when his name was registered. Whatever was stated regarding area of the apartments of the house were merely indications. The area of the house depended on the availability of the land set apart for the purpose. The complainant cannot insist that he should be allotted house as per specification. If house was allotted under flat system it cannot be said that there was violation of the terms by the opposite parties. No binding contract merely by registration came into existence between the complainant and the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to the house as per specification. It is difficult for us to hold that there was any deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties. The complainant has claimed interest by way of compensation as specified in para 17 of the complaint. As we have held that there has been no delay on the part of the opposite parties in allotting the house, interest on that count cannot be awarded. Compensation can only be awarded under Sec. 14(1)(d) of the Act for the loss or injury suffered by the complainant on account of the negligence of the opposite parties. There is no material on record whatsoever to establish that he lived in a rented housing paying Rs. 800.00 p.m. since 1983. As there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties the question of awarding compensation on account of bodily pain, mental agony and financial loss does not arise. The complainant is only entitled to the interest on deposited amount as per the Housing Board (Disposal of Property). Regulations, 1970. Having considered the principles laid down by the National Commission for the award of compensation we are of opinion that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever.

THE complainant failed to exercise his option as asked by the opposite parties. It may be state that the opposite parties in para 7 of the version of the case have stated as under: "YEH KI PRARTHNA PATARA KA MAD NUMBER 8 MEI VARNIT VIGYAPTIJARI KIYA JANA SWIKAR HAI, SHEISH VARNAN GALAT HAI EVAM ASWIKAR HAI. PARIVADI NEI PRATY ARTHI KEPATRA DINANK 22/6/1989 EVAM UKT VARNIT VIGY APTI KE KRAM MEI MAKAN LENE KI SAHAMATI NAHI DI, ISLIYE USKO VARNIT MAKAN KA ABANTAN KAMKABJA PATRA JARI NAHI KIYA GAYA HAI. AVEDAK KA PANJIKARAN YATHAVAT HAI EVAM RAHEGA TATHA ANYA COLONY MEI MAKAN UPLABDH HONE PUR USKI VARIYATA KE AADHAR PUR MAKAN ABANTIT KAR DIYA JAYEGA."

THE opposite parties in view of the statement made in para 7 of the version of the case have agreed to allot the house in accordance of the priority on the basis of the complainant''s registration and deliver its possession. THE opposite parties are therefore directed to maintain the registration of the complainant intact and allot a suitable house to the complainant on the basis of the priority in any other colony as soon as it is possible. THE complaint succeeds only to this limited extent that the registration of the complainant will be kept intact in future and a suitable house will be allotted to the complainant in some other colony. THE other reliefs claimed by the complainant were refused. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. THE complaint is decided accordingly. Complaint partly allowed.