RAKESH JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner aspirant for allotment of a house for middle income group B in Kalptaru Scheme launched by respondent Board, made deposit of Rs. 6,000 on 11.12.1991 for registration of his candidature. Subsequently he also made deposit of Rs. 10,000 for allotment of a house for MIG-B Category in Parijat Scheme. A reservation letter was accordingly issued to the petitioner by respondent Board on 30.4.1993. The allotment of house in Malviya Nagar, Jaipur was eventually made to the petitioner by Board on 21.3.2005 with cost of Rs. 8,30,495 and on adjustment of the deposits made by petitioner and also the interest to which he was eligible, petitioner, along with aforesaid allotment letter was asked to make deposit of Rs. 4,61,707. This made the petitioner aggrieved for filing a consumer complaint with District Forum. The District Forum on evaluation of pleadings of parties having misdirected itself quashed the allotment letter issued by Board directing them to issue fresh amended allotment letter. Board was also made answerable to allot house to the petitioner on a rate prevailing on 30.4.1993 when allotment of house was made to him. Other ancillary direction too was issued in the aforesaid order. The finding of District Forum being adverse to the respondent Board, latter took up matter in appeal. State Commission nicely appreciating issues in its correct perspective, while setting aside order of District Forum, accepted appeal of Board. Aggrieved petitioner is now in revision.

(2.) Petitioner has a lot of grievances against belated allotment of house by respondent Board that too not under Parijat Scheme for which he was aspirant. Yet other grievance of petitioner was that since draw of lottery for allotment of house to aspirants was made by Housing Board on 22.2.1994, allottees were liable only to pay cost of the house which was in vogue on that date. Added to this, since payment of all instalments was made by petitioner by 1994 the cost of house prevalent on that day was most appropriate consideration which petitioner is liable to pay. It was contended that though respondent Board was under obligation in terms of agreement to allot house to allottees within two years, belated allotment of house after afflux of 11 years evidently itself puts the Board in wrong box making them liable to pay compensation and also interest @ 20% p.a. on deposits made by petitioner. Yet other grievance of petitioner is that even though house bearing No. 6/422 which was allotted to him was incomplete and unfit for human habilitation, petitioner was forced to acknowledge offer and in all fairness cost of the house should not have been more than Rs. 2,30,495 which was shown in brochure.

(3.) The communication which was issued to petitioner by respondent Board on 30.4.1993 was simply a reservation letter which was construed to be an allotment letter under mistaken perception by petitioner. There is no gain saying the fact that tentative cost of the house was Rs. 2,30,495 but it was merely a tentative cost subject to finally determined by the Board while allotting house to allottees. It was only on 21.3.2005 that after finally calculating the cost of the house, allotment letter was issued to petitioner indicating cost of the house to be Rs. 8,30,495 and on adjustment of deposits made by petitioner and also interest to which he was eligible, he was called upon by the Board to pay cost Rs. 4,61,707. Board acted fairly in awarding admissible interest on deposits made by petitioner in conformity with terms and conditions of agreement and it would be profitable to put extract of those terms and conditions of agreement which is as follows: