N.D. SALI Vs. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the order in W.P. No. 15421 of 2006, dated 16-2-2009 (N.D. Sali v. Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore and Others) whereby the learned Single Judge has directed respondents 1 and 2 to allot a new house to the appellant on the same terms and conditions as existed as on the date of initial allotment of the house bearing No. 17/C situated at MIGI Extension, II Phase, B Tank Bed Road, Hassan. The appellant was allotted the above house by respondents 1 and 2 on 29-10-1999. A lease-cum-sale deed as per Annexure-B, dated 29-3-2000 was executed in respect of the said house in his favour subject to the terms and conditions stated therein. Possession of the house was given to the appellant as per the possession memo at Annexure-C, dated 13-4-2000. The total value of the house was Rs. 3,72,000/-. The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 37,214/-, which covers 10% of the value of the house before the date of allotment. It is the case of the appellant that he has spent a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to make it habitable. He could not pay the installments in accordance with the terms of the lease-cum-sale deed at Annexure-B. He made an application seeking extension of time for payment of balance of the amount and the first respondent as per the letter at Annexure-E, dated 1-9-2004. It is contended that respondent 1 has granted six months time to pay the balance of the amount. A notice at Annexure-F, dated 18/19-2-2005 was issued calling upon him to pay the balance of Rs. 4,01,130/-. He was granted three months further time to pay the balance of the amount as per Annexure-G, dated 14-6-2005. Again, as per the letter dated 22-12-2005 at Annexure-K, he was granted further time of 30 days for payment of balance of the amount of Rs. 6,24,500/-. It is the case of the appellant that despite the extension of time as above, the first respondent-Board cancelled the allotment of the house under Annexure-A order dated 25-5-2005.

(2.) It is further contended that the first respondent has unilaterally executed a deed of cancellation of lease-cum-sale agreement as per Annexure-H, dated 15-6-2006. An absolute sale deed in respect of the said house was executed in favour of the third respondent on 21-6-2006. The allotment of the house in favour of the third respondent is on the basis of an undated letter at Annexure-R1 sent by her to the Commissioner of the Housing Board. During the pendency of the writ petition, a resolution was passed by the Board as per Annexure-M, dated 23-10-2008 regularizing the allotment of the aforesaid house in favour of the appellant and to allot some other house to the third respondent.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 have filed their statement of objections contending that the appellant has failed to pay the installments in terms of the lease-cum-sale deed. Therefore, they have cancelled the allotment of site and the same has been sold in favour of the third respondent.