SUNIL KUMAR VERMA Vs. HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , Sunil Kumar Verma, applied for allotment of a LIG house in the year 1983. His name was included in the draw of lots held on 16.08.1983 and he was successful therein. Accordingly, vide memorandum dated 26.09.1983, he was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 1680/ - within a period of 30 days, which the petitioner deposited and accordingly, vide letter of allotment dated 10.07.1984 (Annexure P2) tenement No. 1870A(P), Sector -6, Kamal, was allotted to him on hire -purchase basis for a total premium of Rs. 32,600/ -. Condition (3) of the letter of allotment required the petitioner to execute a Hire -Purchase Tenancy Agreement and take possession of the tenement, within thirty days of the issue of letter of allotment as possession of the tenement was to be given after the execution of agreement and first installment and such other dues, as would be demanded, were paid. The necessary hire -purchase tenancy Agreement was executed on 13.08.1984 and before that, petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 8,300/ -. According to Clause 2(q) of the Hire -Purchase Tenancy Agreement dated 13.08.1984 (a copy whereof has been produced by counsel for the petitioner in Court during the course of hearing), the petitioner was required to make full payment regularly and in case of default of payment, he was liable to pay penalty. The said clause reads thus: - -

(2.) PETITIONER did not pay the installments regularly. In fact, he paid an amount of Rs. 1,056/ - on 16.11.1984 and another amount of Rs. 2,360/ - on 13.12.1984. As the petitioner did not adhere to the schedule of payment of installment, respondents served upon him a notice dated 07.1.1986 (Annexure R -1) advising him to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,900/ - due till December 1985 on or before 15.01.1986. However, the petitioner did not bother. Another notice dated 06.06.1986 (Annexure R -2) reminding the petitioner that an amount of Rs. 1,450/ - was outstanding against him as rent for two months commencing from January, 1986, was issued while directing him to deposit the said amount within 30 days. Still nothing was paid by the petitioner and, as such, vide notice dated 21.08.1987 (Annexure R -3/P -3), the Estate Manager, Housing Board, Haryana, Karnal(S) (respondent No. 2) granted last opportunity to the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,449/ - as arrears of monthly installments upto 07.09.1987 with a clear stipulation that in the event of the petitioner's failure to make payment of the aforesaid amount by the given date, a penalty to the extent of 25% shall be imposed upon him under Section 53A(1) of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Even to this notice, the petitioner did not bother. Again, vide notice dated 11.09.1987 (Annexure R -4), petitioner was called upon to pay an amount of Rs. 10,499/ - within 30 days from the date of receipt of that notice and it was also stated that in the event amount being not paid within the aforesaid time period, it would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Even this notice failed to bring any effect on the petitioner and, as such, vide order dated 30.10.1987 (Annexure R -5) passed under Section 51(1) of the Act, the competent authority ordered eviction of the petitioner and directed him to vacate the tenement within 30 days from the date of effecting service of that order upon the petitioner. Petitioner neither deposited the outstanding arrears of land revenue nor vacated the tenement, which led 2nd respondent to issue memorandum dated 16.11.1988 (Annexure R -6/P -4) directing the petitioner to vacate the tenement on or before 30.11.1988 and also clarified that in the event of the tenement being not vacated by him, he would be evicted forcibly therefrom. Petitioner did not comply with this direction as well. The 2nd respondent, vide his memorandum dated 28.08.1989 (Annexure R -7/P -5), told the petitioner that physical possession of the tenement would be taken by the respondents at 10:00 A.M. on 12.09.1989, in case, he fails to vacate it on or before 11.09.1989. Petitioner did not vacate the tenement and, ultimately, possession of the tenement was taken over from him by the 2nd respondent on 12.09.1989 and a public notice (Annexure R -8) was published in this respect. In the meantime, petitioner sent a demand draft for Rs. 3,000/ - to the respondents on 04.09.1989. This amount was retained by the respondents and was adjusted towards arrears of rent outstanding against the petitioner. After his eviction from the tenement in question, petitioner sent a demand draft for Rs. 8,000/ - on 19.07.1990 but the respondent returned this amount, vide memorandum dated 21.09.1990 (Annexure P -8) as the allotment of tenement has already been cancelled and the physical possession has already been taken due to non -payment of installments. The petitioner sent a duplicate demand draft dated 07.04.1992 amounting to Rs. 8,000/ - towards balance installments, vide his application dated 18.04.1992 (Annexure P -14), to the 2nd respondent but the 2nd respondent returned the same, vide memorandum dated 08.05.1992 (Annexure P -16), to the petitioner stating therein that the same could not be adjusted at that stage and the petitioner was further advised by 2nd respondent not to make any further correspondence in this regard in future.

(3.) IN the response, filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner being a habitual defaulter did not pay the rent despite repeated notices and it was as a last resort his eviction was ordered from the tenement in question as he did not pay anything towards rent after 13.12.1985 notwithstanding affecting service of various notices upon him and, as such, he is not entitled to any relief. It is also stated in the response by the respondents that the writ petition suffers from delay and latches as possession of the tenement was taken over on 12.09.1989 and the writ petition has been filed on 20.07.1992, i.e., after about three years silence and no explanation whatsoever is coming forth for this delay.