M D HEGDE Vs. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order of the State Commission which allowed the appeal of respondent, Karnataka Housing Board and quashing the order of the District Forum which had accepted the prayer of the petitioner/complainant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant was allotted an M.I.G. house in Doddanagudde in Udupi District, Mangalore in 1980 by the respondent Board. Admittedly the house had been built/completed in 1978. It is also not in dispute that para 12 of the intimation of allotment stated that "the allottees shall accept any alteration in the value of the house, if any, which will be intimated to him/her". House at time was to cost Rs. 60,685/- which was purchased by the petitioner under Lease-cum-Sale agreement. The petitioner paid the initial amount of Rs. 33,185/- and the balance was paid in 'equal instalments'. Clause 6 of the Lease Deed contained a provision which reads "the price of the house as now fixed is Rs. 60,685/-. It may be altered by the Board and the lessee/purchaser binds himself to accept such a price". When after making full payment, as given out to him, the petitioner approached the respondent Board for execution of the Sale Deed, instead of getting the order on execution of lease deed, petitioner was informed by a letter dated 12.10.1992 that price of the house has now been worked out at Rs. 87,891/-, hence he should deposit Rs. 27,206/-in order to execute the Sale Deed. It is against this that the petitioner/complainant approached the District Forum who after taking into consideration the pleas of the parties ordered petitioner Board to execute the Sale Deed in respect of the house allotted to the petitioner/complainant without demanding any further amount and also awarded costs of Rs. 500/- in favour of the complainant. The main grounds of allowing the complaint were :

(3.) Against this order of the District Forum, respondent Board filed an appeal before the State Commission who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum relying upon an order of this Commission in which it was held that the question of pricing of the flat by Housing Authority is not a consumer dispute. It was within the powers of the respondent Board to revise the cost of the house in view of provisions in the Lease Deed as also a similar provision in the letter of intimation. It is against this order that revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant.