UNION OF INDIA Vs. MUNICIPALITY OF ITARSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint has been filed by the Union of India against the Municipality of Itarsi for refund of the amount paid to the Municipality Itarsi for construction of office and residential building. A sum of Rs. 20,10,000 was deposited on 13.4.1999 of which receipt was obtained. The opposite party gave on lease plots with specification in scheme No. l of Priyadarshini Nagar of Itarsi Improvement Trust to interested parties for the purpose of construction of office -cum -residential building. The Itarsi Improvement Trust after abolition of the M.P. Trust Act merged in the Municipality and the work of the trust was thereafter undertaken by the Municipality.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY an agreement dated 16.1.1999 was executed between the parties. As per Clause 13 of the agreement the plot was given on lease by the opposite party to the complainant for the purpose of getting a house/building constructed by the lessee through the agency of the Itarsi Improvement Trust under the Self -Financing Housing Scheme. It had further been stipulated in the clause that the plot will be handedover to the lessee after the completion of the house/building under the scheme by the Itarsi Improvement Trust. Thus, it was clear that as per the agreement between the parties, it was the duty of the Itarsi Improvement Trust under the control and direction of the opposite party, to construct the building of standard quality on the plot and deliver the possession thereof.

(3.) THE complainant waited for a reasonable time for getting possession of the building and the complainant addressed a number of letters to the opposite party for handing over the possession of the building, but till date of filing of the complaint the possession was not delivered despite letters, Annexure C -4 to C -13. By Annexure C -9 and C -10, the complainant had given notice of legal action, if necessary, against the opposite party and in the event of the latter failing to handover the possession of the building without further delay. The Municipality sent a letter dated 9.10.2002 in which they offered to give possession of the building notwithstanding the defects which could be remedied later. It was mentioned that the pipes which were provided to drain the water from the terrace had been broken by anti -social elements with the result the water got clogged and there was seepage in the walls. The proper arrangements had been made to drain the water and thus, this defect had been cured. It was also mentioned that for providing water, steps had already been taken by sinking a tube well and immediately when the Electricity Board puts a three phase line, the tube -well will start and, thus, this problem will also get solved. They also stated that there were hair -cracks in the wall. Window panes were provided by the contractor, but they were broken by the miscreants. After the possession is taken the panes will be fixed. It was also mentioned in this letter that in August 2002 when the building was inspected, the possession was not handed -over by the contractor. On 4.10.2002 the contractor had given keys and, therefore, the possession will now be handed -over. As per agreement whatever defects are existing in the building will be remedied after possession is taken. It was in these circumstances and on promise that defects will be removed, the offer to take possession was made.