PUNJAB HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE letter dated 27.6.1991 one MIG category House No. 488 in Urban Estate, Phase I, Patiala was allotted to Ashok Kumar by the Punjab Housing Development Board (hereinafter referred to as Board). As per the conditions of allotment incorporated in the letter of allotment, he was required to pay 25 per cent of the tentative price of the house within 30 days of the date of letter of allotment. He was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 38034/-, which was to constitute 25% of the tentative price of the MIG category house allotted to him. It was also incumbent upon him to take actual physical possession of the house within the aforesaid period, failing which the allotment was liable to be cancelled. As per him, Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as CRPF) was occupying this house and whenever he went to inspect this house, he found the CRPF in occupation of the house. CRPF had broken the glasses of the window panes. They had also removed certain points of electric fittings. House had thus become unfit for human habitation. As per him, there were certain conditions in the letter of allotment and one such condition was that he was required to submit affidavit that the house was complete in all respects and he had no complaint whatsoever with regard to its constructional defects. Before submitting such an affidavit, he inspected the house and found that the house was not complete at all and that flush in the latrine had not been constructed. Water tank had not been fitted and water taps had not been fitted in the water pipes. He requested Estate Officer of the Board to complete the house, make it habitable and remove the deficiencies. Estate Officer was, however, insisting that he should first taken possession and then point out deficiencies. He was also insisting that he should first file an affidavit before taking possession and state therein that the house was complete in all respects. As per him, it was not possible for him to file such an affidavit when the house was incomplete and state that the house was complete in all respects. He never surrendered the house allotted to him by the Board. Instead, he asked the Estate Officer of the Board that he wanted to take possession of the house allotted to him and also about the amount, which he was required to deposit before taking possession. No reply was, however, conveyed to him. As per him, when he was in correspondence with the Board, the Board issued the order cancelling the allotment of the house. As per him, the cancellation of the house was illegal and unwarranted. He was not required to take possession of the house when the house was incomplete in certain respects and there were certain deficiencies. He could take possession only after the deficiencies had been removed. He was not required to deposit 25% of the tentative price of the house, when the delivery of possession of the house could not take place contemporaneously with the deposit of the amount by him. On these allegations, Ashok Kumar filed suit for declaration challenging the order of cancelation of the allotment of the house to him dated 25.5.1994 saying that cancellating the allotment of MIG category house to him in Urban Estate, Phase I Patiala was illegal and not binding on him and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand over the possession of the said house to him complete in all respects after restoring the allotment of the house to him on receipt of 25% of the tentative price of the house without any penalty.

(2.) DEFENDANT -Board contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that the house was completely fit for human habitation. It was denied that CRPF people used the house imprudently and broke the glasses of window panes and also removed the certain points of electricity fittings. He was requested many a time to take possession of the house. He failed to compete the necessary formalities and even did not deposit Rs. 25000/- with the Board, which was due to him. In fact the Board wrote so many letters calling upon him to take possession of the house immediately and if at any stage any constructional defect was found the same would be removed. He failed to get possession of the house despite letter dated 25.8.1993 having been written to him. Estate Officer again requested him to take possession within 15 days or else the allotment of the house could be cancelled. Defendant wrote another letter to the plaintiff dated 24.9.1993 calling upon him to deposit the requisite amount of Rs. 25000/- with them but he failed to deposit the same. Plaintiff was not interested in taking possession of the house. Defendant was always ready and willing to hand over possession of the house to him after completing all the formalities. As the plaintiff failed to complete the formalities inspite of repeated requests, the earnest money deposited by him stood forfeited. Cancellation of the allotment of plot was thus legal, valid and according to law and regulations.

(3.) BOARD went in appeal, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Patiala.