U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD vs KARAN SINGH CHAUHAN

In this appeal U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (formerly called UP Housing and Urban Development Board) has challenged the decision of U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Dispute No.122 of 2000. The complaint of Shri Karan Singh Chauhan has been allowed. OP/Housing Board has been directed to allot House No. C-304, Indira Nagar Extension Lucknow on terms and conditions similar to those in House No.8/310 Indira Nagar Extension on the valuation and terms of 27.8.1997. As seen from the record, House No.8/310 with total area of 137.60 sq mt. was allotted to the Complainant on 8.7.1997. But, this allotment was cancelled on 13.11.1997. Allotment of House No.C-304 was subsequently made in his favour on 23.6.1998. However, the plot-area was much larger than that of 8/310. The Complainant was already in occupation of House No.C/304, as it was allotted to him as official residence from the Housing Board. 10% of his salary was being deducted as house rent.

On 23.6.1998 a letter of allotment was issued in his favour for this House No.C/304, indicating the total price of land and the house as Rs.883273/-. This was followed up by revised allotment letter of the same house dated 23.7.1999. In this the total cost of the house was reduced to Rs.817762/-.

The impugned order has noted that according to the Complainant the total cost of this house, after allowing 5% rebate as an employee of the Board, was Rs.801673/- . In his evidence before the State Commission, the Complainant challenged the valuation of the house as fixed by the Board on the ground that for 16 years the Board had regularly earned rental income from this house and no maintenance expenditure was incurred on it. The Complainant therefore claimed that the depreciated value of the structure should be only Rs.245174/-. He also contested the claim of the Housing Board to value the land at the rate applicable on the date of allotment of House No.C/304. The State Commission has allowed the complaint observing that:- "On examining the entire above mentioned facts and the contentions of learned counsels, under the facts and circumstances of the Present matter, all the formalities as per the terms of earlier allotment of house No.8/310 have been completed by the Complainant. Some also the entire amount against house No.8/310 has been deposited by the complainant out of which about Rs.150000/- was taken as loan also on 15 percent annual interest and had paid 14.50 present interest also to the Board. Since the complainant was entitled to get the possession of said house in August 1997 itself therefore he is not liable for payment of any interest or enhancement charge in respect of house No.C-304. In our opinion the date of allotment shall be treated to be the same on which the house No.8/310 was earlier allotted to the complainant where the rate was given at Rs.835 per Sq. meter. Hence under the circumstances of the present matter there is no justification for charging the price at the rate of Rs.1650/- per square meter. This conduct of the opposite party against the complainant is symbolic of deficiency in service hence we find force in the contention of the counsel for the complainant."

The impugned order also brings out that :- a. The Complainant had paid full price for house no.8/310 but no possession was given to him, in view of the stay of the matter by the High Court on 27.8.1997. Subsequently, when the High Court stay was withdrawn, OP/Board allotted the same house to Shri Santa Ram, Executive Engineer of OP/Board, instead of delivering possession to the Complainant.

b. For the above reason, the date of allotment of the subsequent house no. C/304 should be treated with effect from the date of allotment of earlier house no.8/310.

c. For the same reason valuation of the land in C/304 should not be Rs.1650 per sqmt, as claimed by the OP/Board but Rs.835 per sq mt., which was the land price determined in the earlier allotment of house no.8/310.

d. Admittedly house no.C/304 was 16 years old when allotted the Complainant. Therefore, the depreciation for 16 years in the value of construction should be allowed.

We have heard Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari, Advocate at length on behalf of the Appellant/ UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and carefully perused the record submitted by two sides. Respondent/ Complainant Karan Singh Chauhan has argued his case in person. Delay of 120 days in filing this appeal is condoned, considering the explanation submitted for the same.

The main ground of appeal is that the State Commission has directed re-determination of the value of the subsequently allotted house, on the rates fixed for the previous house, since allotted to another person. On this point after hearing the two sides, we do not find any merit in the contention of the Appellant. The entire situation is a product of internal mismanagement. Resultantly, OP/Housing Board finds itself in a mess of its own creation. The first allotment (House No.8/310) was made on 8.7.1997. The Board had justification for not giving possession of the same, despite collecting full consideration, as the house had come under the stay granted by Hon''ble High Court on 27.8.1997. But, no explanation is forthcoming for allotment of the same house to another employee of the Board on 13.11.1997, when the High Court stay was no longer in operation.

Another ground is that the Parishad Bandhu of the OP/Board had decided that the price of the surplus land should be at the rate applicable on the date of allotment of this house. Apparently, it refers to the difference between the plot areas of the first allotted house No. 8/310-137.6 sqmt) and that of the subsequently allotted house (No.C/304-247.87sqmt). There is no explanation, why? It is not the case of the OP/Board that larger plot size was given on the request of the complainant. In fact, even in the complaint and in his arguments, the complainant has expressed his willingness to accept house No. 8/310. Change to C/304 is a compulsion of the OP/Board coming from their act of allotting it to another employee. Therefore, in our view, differential valuation on the basis of size of the plot, cannot be sustained.

In the result, we find no merit in this appeal. The same is consequently dismissed and the order of U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Dispute No.122 of 2000 is confirmed. No order as to costs.