TAMIL NADU HOUSING UNIT Vs. V BABY SAROJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party is the Appellant.

(2.) THE complainant owned the plot No. 27 of NGGO colony at Nagapattinam from the opposite party Housing Board and constructed the house during the year 1981. The opposite party was incharge of maintenance. The house constructed by the opposite party in the NGGO colony is unfit for living. Hence the complainant and other occupants were complained to the opposite party and the opposite party agreed to allot alternative house in the Marai Malai Nagar Scheme. Complainant was allotted one house in the twin house model. But the complainant was not satisfied with the house to live and requested the opposite party to allot separate house. But the opposite party not complied with the request of the complainant. Hence she filed a case before the District Forum and obtained an order for injunction against handing over to earlier house for demolition. Subsequently opposite party sent demand letter for Rs. 1,20,222 for releasing the sale deed for the plot No. 27 of NGGO colony.

(3.) OPPOSITE party admitted that the complainant is theowner of the said house in Plot No. 27 of NGGO coiony, But denied the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant was allotted MIGI -65 in the 9th street house at Marai Malai Nagar without demanding any additional costs. The other allottees have paid the additional costs which was allotted by them. There was no demand from her for a separate house. The amount paid by her was adjusted for the House in MIGI -65 house. She paid the land cost alone for MIGI -65 twin house. Unless she pays the amount, sale deed in the Plot No.27 of NGGO colony cannot be executed. She is in possession and enjoying the house in plot No.27. Therefore she is bound to pay the cost of the house for execution of sale deed.