RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. PARVATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed under Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the "MRTP Act") against the judgment and order dated 30-5-1996 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practice Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTP Commission") passed in RTPE No. 100 of 1994 and UPPE/RTPE No. 15 of 1994, where by the Commission has held that appellant Rajasthan Housing Board has indulged in restrictive trade practices attracting Section 2(o)(ii) of the Act and in unfair trade practice covered by Section 36-A(1)(i) and (vi) of the MRTP Act. Admittedly, the Central Government has issued Notification under Section 3 of the MRTP Act on 27-9-1991 applying the provisions of the MRTP Act, to the appellant Board.

(2.) Before deciding the question involved, we would narrate few facts of each appeal. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14894 OF 1990. (Arising out of RTPE No. 100 of 1994)

(3.) It is admitted that the Rajasthan Housing Board is established under the provisions of Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 and it builds houses and allots the same to persons who are registered with the Board under various schemes framed by it from time to time. The land is placed at the disposal of the Board by the State Government on payment being made by it and houses of different categories are constructed after securing loans from HUDCO and other agencies under the schemes known as Self Financing Schemes. It is stated that respondent got herself registered for the house being allotted to her in low income group category on 12-5-1983 and paid a sum of Rs. 1800/- as registration fee. It is also stated that the Board has issued a brochure for general registration, wherein certain conditions for registration, the amount of advance which was to be deposited by the applicant, the estimated cost of different categories of the house to be constructed and the amount of instalment money which was to be paid etc. were mentioned. It is also stated there in that the Board would try its best to make the house available within a period of four years from the date of registration and the appellant would be entiteld to payment of interest on the amount deposited and also to refund of money with interest if the house was not allotted within stipulated period. It is further stated that by letter dated 27-4-1988 respondent was intimated that house had been reserved for her as a r esult of lottery drawn in that year and she was required to pay advance money in three instalments and if there was delay in payment of the said instalments, respondent was further requried to pay interest @ 18% p.a. by way of penalty. Thereafter by letter dated 29-2 -1992 the respondent was intimated by the Board that total cost of house allotted to her had been woked out at Rs. 57,500/- and she should start making payment of the remaining amount by instalments @ Rs. 715/- per month from 15-4-1992.