R.L. GUPTA vs H.P. NAGAR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN

WITH the consent of the parties the matter has been reheard.

THE facts which are not disputed by both the parties and relevant for determining the point in controversy are that the complainant applied for allotment of MIG-II flat under Social Housing Scheme floated by the Shimla Development Authority (now Himachal Pradesh Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran). THE complainant has prayed for various relief(s) including the interest for the delayed delivery of the possession of MIG flat. Mr. L.C. Kapoor, learned Counsel for the complainant has very fairly stated that the complaint was filed on 16.12.1991 and the possession was taken over by the complainant on 14.11.1990 and the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement was also executed on the same date. In other words, the complaint has been filed after taking over the possession of MIG flat that is after about one year.

The fundamental question which requires consideration is whether the complainant, after taking over the possession of the flat and entering into Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement, can be heard to say that there has been unnecessary delay in the construction of the flat.

THIS precise question has been considered by us in original complaint No. 51 of 1993 Sant Ram Sharma v. Shimla Development Authority and Others connected complaints decided on 22.5.1997, whereby we have held that where the complaint has been filed after taking over the possession of the flat/plot/house and entering into Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement, the complainant cannot be heard to say that there has been delay in construction of plot/flat/house. The present case is squarely covered by our judgment in the aforesaid case and the complaint has necessarily to be dismissed. In the light of what is discussed above, there is no force in this complaint and the complaint is accordingly dismissed. Complaint dismissed.