HUDA Vs. DEVENDER GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and respondent.

(2.) SCF No. 131, a commercial complex of U.E.I., Hisar was allotted to respondent-complainant by virtue of allotment letter issued on 2.2.2000 also stipulating therein offer of possession made to the allottee. However, since standard design had not been supplied to the respondent at the point of time and which could not be made available to him, he moved petitioner for supply of site plan on 28.6.2001. It is not in dispute that standard design was supplied to respondent only on 5.12.2001 by petitioner. After petitioner raised demand against respondent calling upon him to pay interest from the day possession was offered along with allotment letter, eyebrows were raised by respondent questioning authority of petitioner to levy interest from date of offer of possession which was virtually an eye-wash as no construction could have been raised by respondent, there being no approved site plan with him. A consumer complaint eventually came to be filed with District Forum, which having overruled contentions raised on behalf of petitioner made observation that there being no approved site plan with respondent, possession be treated to have been offered to respondent on 5.12.2001 and petitioner was directed to realize interest from that date alone. State Commission which affirmed finding of District Forum, dismissing appeal filed by petitioner authority, observed that petitioner had failed to demonstrate that standard designed plan was made available to allottee along with letter of allotment. Defence of the petitioner which was taken before Fora below is also sought to be reiterated before me taking recourse of Rule 6 of HUDA (Erection of Building) Regulations, 1979, which gives option to the allottee also to obtain site plan from Estate Officer on payment of prescribed fee. This defence did not appear to have impressed Fora below and I too find my self in conformity that no fault can accordingly be found with the order of the State Commission, which is impugned in this revision petition and that being so, revision petition, being without substance is dismissed with no order as to costs.