SWAM LATA KANTH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Ram Sharan Prasad Kanth, husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2 was the allottee of a flat constructed by the Bihar State Housing Board ( 'the Board ', hereinafter). According to the petitioners, after his death on 5.6.1994 petitioner no.1, his widowed wife continues to be in occupation of the flat, in exercise of her rights as the allottee, on the basis of the express consent given by each of her children, including petitioner no.2. The two petitioners seek to challenge the demand for additional payment (of Rs.46,039 / - as on 28.2.1999) made by the Board in demand letters as contained in Annexure 5 series. It is the case of the petitioners that all payments in full and final settlement of the consideration for the flat was made long ago and they seek a direction to the Board to execute the necessary transfer deeds in respect of the flat in favour of petitioner no.1.2. The facts of the case which are quite simple and undisputed can be stated thus. In 1987 the Board announced its scheme for construction of 384 flats under self financing scheme. The flats were to be constructed in three categories and in this case we are concerned with a flat in category 'A ', having an area of 1450 sq.ft. The projected period for completing the construction was two years and the tentative price of a category 'A ' flat was fixed at Rs.2,20,0007 -. The allotment was to be made by lottery and the payment schedule as indicated in the scheme brochure was as follows :

(2.) THE balance amount, including interest, misc. expenses, if any, etc. was to be paid by way of full and final payment before possession of the flat would be delivered to the allottee.

(3.) A lottery was held on 27.6.1989 in which the husband of petitioner no.1 was allotted flat no. 3 -SFa -3/35 and letter dated 1.7.1989 (Annexure 1) was issued to him from the Board intimating him about the allotment of the flat in his favour. Following the allotment, according to the provisions of the scheme, the husband of petitioner no.1 made payments to the Board in the following manner: