K C SHARMA Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the Complainant is that he had applied for a MIG House under Hire Purchase Scheme of the Opposite Party, Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA). He was issued a letter on 10.3.1989, according to which the possession of the allotted house was to be given immediately after deposit of Rs. 35,000 against total estimated price of Rs. 1,75,000. In terms of this letter, he was entitled to receive possession of the house on 8.5.1989. The GDA increased the price of the house, which was paid under the fear of cancellation. Yet, the possession was nothanded over. Therefore, the Complainant sought relief from the District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad who directed the GDA to hand over possession of fully completed house, with civic amenities, to the Complainant within three months and also pay interest of 18%, till the date of actual possession on the amounts deposited. In appeal against the above order, the State Commission took note of the fact that the delay was due to High Court stay and therefore, there was no question of payment of interest.

(2.) The present Revision Petition has been filed against this order of the State Commission. The Revision Petitioner/Complainant has prayed that a direction should be issued to the GDA to hand over possession of the allotted house and pay interest of 18% till the date of actual possession. We have perused the records and heard the Counsel for the Revision petitioner. The Respondent was absent, despite service of notice.

(3.) It is seen from the case record that the High Court stay, in favour of the land owners in Writ Petition No. 10931 of 1991, had remained operational from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993. Due to this stay, developmental works in the lay out had remained suspended for a period two years and eight months. This delay was beyond the control of the GDA. Further, in the written submission, it has been informed on behalf of the Respondent/GDA that the Complainant was also permitted time till 1.1.1994 to take possession after paying the necessary dues but he did not. It is in this background that the UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has observed that: