LAWS(NCD)-2012-9-142

HARYANA HOUSING BOARD Vs. KAMAL SINGH

Decided On September 18, 2012
HARYANA HOUSING BOARD Appellant
V/S
KAMAL SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - Aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission), the Housing Board, Haryana has approached this Commission with the present petition, purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon, by which order the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the following relief granted:

(2.) Though in appeal, a plea was raised on the behalf of the petitioner that the conveyance deed could not be executed in favour of the complainant as he was found using the allotted tenement for the purpose of running a factory as against the residential purpose for which the tenement was allotted to the complainant. However, the said plea did not find favour with the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the District Forum.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Salil Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Housing Board but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent as the respondent-complainant remained un-represented on record despite due service of notice under Registered A/D post. Mr. Paul would assail the concurrent findings and orders passed by the Fora below primarily on the ground that the Fora below have failed to appreciate that Housing Board has made his intention clear to execute the sale deed provided there was no violation of the terms and conditions of allotment of the tenement. He states that the tenement was allotted to the complainant-respondent for residential purpose only but after taking possession of the same, the complainant started using the same for a non-conforming use i.e. running factory which is violation of the Clause 2(d) of Hire-Purchase Tenancy Agreement. Reference is invited to the relevant Clause 2(d) of the said agreement, which is to the following effect: