BIRENDRA PRASAD SINHA Vs. BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.8.1996 passed in "CWJC No. 1271/96 (R), whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge has dismissed the foresaid writ application.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent Housing Board by a deed of agreement dated 27.7.1984 and pursuant to that agreement he took possession of the plot in question on 25.8.1984. In the year 1987. a registered deed of agreement was executed. According to the petitioner -appellant he paid the amount of instalment regularly and last instalment was paid on 5.7.1993 in support of that, a chart showing payment of such instalments duly certified by the Executive Engineer, Housing Board, dated 6.7.1995 was filed in the writ application. Even after payment of all the instalments and issuance of a certificate to that effect by the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 4 has issued a letter dated 31.7.1995 placing a demand of Rs. 1,09,066.00. After issuance of that letter dated 31.7.1995, the petitioner appellant filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 1271/96(R), which was dismissed by the learned single Judge.

(3.) MR . Sohail Anwar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner -appellant, submitted that there is no justification for placing a demand of Rs. 1,09,066/ - when all the instalments, as agreed by the parties, have been paid by the petitioner -appellant and a certificate to that effect has been issued and verified by the respondent No. 3. The payments made by the petitioner have duly been verified by the Executive Engineer, Housing Board, who is respondent No. 3. The last instalment was paid in July 1993 but Annexure -7 was issued in 1995 placing a demand of Rs. 1,09,066/ -i.e., two years after full payment was made by the petitioner -appellant. Learned Counsel further pointed out that from verification of chart submitted by the respondent No. 3 showing details of payment, if will appear that even compound interest has been charged by the respondents and the amount deposited by the petitioner has not been deducted. Learned Counsel further pointed out that purpose for creation of the Housing Board is to provide housing facilities at cheap rates to the needy per - sons at reasonable rates and to save them from the clutches of other institutions which charge higher rates of interest and indulge in other malpractices. But from the instant case, it appears that the respondents instead of fulfilling the aims of Housing Board are just harassing the persons who have been allotted flats. Learned Counsel further pointed out that from the letter of the Executive Engineer (Annexure -5) it will appear that flat was handed over without proper construction and without installing the windows and doors etc. Learned Counsel further pointed out that deficiencies pointed out in the flat were certified by the respondent No. 3 and he also wrote letters dated 14.11.1984 and 20.11.1964 but there is no such report that deficiencies were removed. Learned Counsel further pointed out that agreed amount was Rs. 84.000/ - and odd and as against that agreed amount, the petitioner -appellant has already paid a sum of Rs. 1,06,055.31 but the respondents placed a demand of Rs. 1,09,000/ - and odd, which appears to be mockery of the creation of the Housing Board because the tentative price of Rs. 84,000/ - and odd may be Rs. 90,000/ - or 95,000/ -.