BULLANDSHAHR KHURJA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals having arisen out of the common facts and circumstances are taken up together for decision by a common judgment.

(2.) WHEREAS the judgment dated 6.5.2002 of the District Consumer Forum, Bullandshahr was subjected to challenge by the Bullandshahr Khurja Development Authority, the other Appeal No. 1125/SC/2008 was presented against the order dated 22.5.2008 passed by the same District Consumer Forum. By means of the former judgment the complaint of Sri Anil Kumar was allowed with a direction to the aforesaid Development Authority to handover possession of House No. 182 of the EWS scheme to the complainant. As directed further, the Development Authority had to realize the balance amount of the price by way of instalments in accordance with the scheme subsequent to the delivery of possession. During the pendency of the appeal filed by the Development Authority the complainant moved an execution application before the Forum concerned but it was rejected on the ground that the execution petition was not maintainable in view of the interim stay order of this Commission. Insofar as this rejection order passed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is absolutely just and legal order. This Commission vide its order of February 26, 2003 had asked the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the House No. C -182, allotted to the complainant. As the said order is still in vogue, we find no legal infirmity with the order dated 22.5.2008 passed under Section 27 of the Act. Indeed the execution of the judgment in appeal before us could not have proceeded in view of the status quo order.

(3.) INSOFAR as the other appeal is concerned, it may in brief be narrated that the complainant who belonged to the weaker section was required to deposit Rs. 1,510 as the registration fees and another sum of Rs. 1,500 as allotment fees. Besides this amount of Rs. 3,010, an another sum of Rs. 5,000 had to be deposited though with a facility of four instalments of half -yearly each. In this way a total sum of Rs. 8,010 was required to be deposited before the commencement of the payment of the balance sum by way of instalments. The total price of the house at the initial stage of the scheme was determined as Rs. 18,000 but subsequently the Development Authority enhanced it to Rs. 51,000. The complainant felt aggrieved of the order pertaining to the enhancement of the price and started arguing with the authorities that enhancement was not justified. The Forum below has recorded a finding that although the Development Authority was competent to have raised the price yet, since it had failed to justify the enhancement its demand of the enhanced price was not sustainable. We will deal this part of the subject a little latter but here it may be observed that the complainant himself had committed default in payment of Rs. 8,010 in the way and manner as disclosed above and as recited in the brochure. Had he paid the sum of Rs. 8,010 his cause to raise his voice against the enhancement would have been dealt with on merit but he had committed default in making the payment of the said part of the price of Rs. 8,010. He, being a defaulter, cannot be said to be entitled to force the Development Authority to listen to any request that might have been pressed by him into service. The plea of non -payment because of the alleged wrong decision in the matter of enhancement of the price cannot be approved of. The complainant had to perform his part of obligation while seeking allotment of a house and if he himself committed a default, he cannot ask the other side to come alive to its commitment. In the backdrop of this default, if the Development Authority cancelled his allotment and allotted the house to someone else, there was nothing wrong in it. It is not disputed that the house in question had been allotted to a third party before the impugned judgment of 6.5.2002 was delivered and the interim order on 26.2.2003 was issued.