LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ROOP KISHORE TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by the Lucknow Development Authority that the appellant has again raised before us the preliminary objection that the Lucknow Development Authority is not rendering any 'service' as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This contention cannot stand in view of the various decisions rendered by this Commission commencing with U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Garima Shukla, I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC).

(2.) On the merits we see little scope for any interference with the order passed by the State Commission. The Respondent who had been allotted a house by the Appellant, Lucknow Development Authority, was to deposit the price of the house and after he had complied with the said requirement, the registration of the house was effected in his favour and order for delivery of possession was also issued to the respondent as early as in August 1988. Despite all this, possession of the house has not so far been given to him by the Appellant apparently for the reason that there were some disputes between the Appellant and the Contractor who was in charge of the construction of the building. The existence of any such dispute is purely an internal matter between the Appellant and the contractor and it does not constitute a valid explanation for the delay in the delivery of possession to the respondent who had paid full cost of the house. The order passed by the State Commission directing payment of interest @14% P.A. from 1.12.1988 till 31.3.1990 on the amount of price deposited by the Respondent is perfectly just and correct and calls for no interference. The further direction issued by the State Commission that delivery of possession of the house should be given by the Appellant to the Respondent by 31.10.1990 and in default the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of the concluding paragraph of the order of the State Commission should be complied with by the appellant are also fully warranted on the facts and circumstances of this case.

(3.) The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant will pay Rs. 350/- by way of costs to the respondent. Appeal dismissed with costs.