Smt. Nawlakha Devi and Another vs State of Bihar and Others

R.N. Prasad, J.—On 2.2.1976 the husband of petitioner No. 1 was allotted M.I.G. quarters No. 164M, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna. The price of the quarters was fixed at Rs. 58,000/-. The allottee deposited Rs. 6,500/- at the time of filing of the application. However, it was clear stipulation that the price may escalate due to acquisition of land and further construction. On 12.4.1980 the allottee was directed to deposit Rs. 8,000/-. He deposited the said amount. After deposit of the said amount the balance stood at Rs. 43,500/-. The allottee was permitted to deposit the said amount in 60 monthly equal instalments. He accordingly deposited the entire amount till 1985. After deposit of the amount on 26.3.1985 petitioner No. 2 made a request to the Housing Board for registration of the document. However, nothing was done. Again the respondent-Board raised a demand for Rs. 4,704/- towards principal and interest. The petitioners deposited the said amount. The petitioners thereafter have always been requesting the Housing Board to register the deed. They also served legal notice for the said purpose but nothing was done. The petitioners thus filed C.W.J.C. No. 3170 of 1997 for direction to the Housing Board to register the document. The said writ petition was disposed of on 5.8.1998 directing the petitioners to go before the Price Committee constituted by virtue of the order of this Court. The petitioners filed written statement before the Price Committee of the Board on 22.9.1998. For the first time the respondent-Housing Board issued annexure 11, the calculation chart. This annexure 11 was issued admittedly in the year 1997/1998. By annexure 11 the Housing Board raised the price of the quarters in question to the tune of Rs. 18,981.17. However, the interest over the said amount was calculated to the tune of Rs. 75,958.22. The dispute is with respect to interest. It has been stated by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that whenever the demand was made, the petitioners used to deposit and they deposited the entire amount. Thereafter no demand was made and calculation chart was made available to the petitioners in the year 1998. Since there was no demand, therefore, no interest can be charged. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that there was a clause in the agreement that even though demand was not raised interest could be charged over the due amount. The submission, in my view, is fallacious. It is well settled rule of law that interest over the due amount can be charged only after demand. Admittedly, the house in question was allotted to the husband of petitioner No. 1 in the year 1976 and the possession, according to the Board, was delivered in the year 1980. The demand was raised till 1987 and deposit was made by the petitioners and thereafter no demand was made. Unless demand is made no interest can be charged. In support of the submission Learned Counsel relied upon a Division Bench decision in the case of Bihar State Housing Board and Others Vs. Sardar Singh, , wherein it has been held that since no demand was made, therefore, no interest can be charged. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Krishna Deva Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, . Thus, on consideration as discussed above demand with respect to interest by the Housing Board cannot be held to be legal. The said part of annexure 11 is hereby quashed. The petitioners will pay Rs. 18,981.17 within a period of three weeks from today and on deposit of the said amount the Housing Board will execute registered deed in favour of the petitioners within two months thereafter.

With the direction indicated above, the writ petition is disposed of.