ATTAUR REHMAN Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts as disclosed in the complaint are these. :-

(2.) In support of the complaint the complainant submitted his affidavit dated 18.12.90. Photostat copies of the documents were submitted by the complainant reference of which was made in the complaint.

(3.) The opposite party filed the version of the case denying the claim of the complainant. It admitted that in 1973 a sum of Rs.500/- was deposited on 3.9.1973 for the registration for the allotment of the house in Jaipur City. The complainant's name was registered in MIG group on 5.4.1974. In April, 74 the complainant gave his option by the letter/form No.11887 for the allotment of house in Nahari-ka-Nakha Scheme measuring 20x50. Name of the complainant was included among the eligible persons and his name was also included in the lottery. But he was not declared successful. The complainant gave option in April, 75 for allotment of a house in Lal Kothi Scheme measuring 25 X 50 but the complainant was already registered under the LIG and he was not eligible for that and, therefore, his option was not accepted. Subsequently, the complainant for the draw of lottery in October, 76 gave his option for allotment of a house in Nahari-Ka-Nakha measuring 18 X 18. His name was included in the lottery but he was not declared successful. Thereafter the complainant gave option again for the allotting a house in Nahari-ka-Nakha Scheme for 20 X 37 and his name was included. But he was not successful. Having failed in so many attempts, he again gave 2 options for Malviya Nagar where the allotment was being made by drawing the lottery. The complainant was not declared successful in the lottery. It was admitted that on 30.5.79 on deposit of Rs.1300/- and Rs.1200/- the complainant got his name changed from LIG to MIG. So according to the opposite party the complainant was in LIG in 1979 and his name has included in MIG 'a' in 1982. The opposite party has pleaded that of the registered applicants of 1973 priority list was prepared on 27.12.84 and before the preparation of the list houses and flats were allotted by lottery in 1973 out of whom the complainant was one. The applicants who remained thereafter their list was prepared on 27.12.84. The complainant wrote the letter, but particulars of registration were not clear and as such the complainant was asked to contact with the copies. It is said that the file of the complainant was available but as particulars of registration were not mentioned they were asked for. The story that the file was lost according to the opposite party is wrong. The name of the complainant was included in the MIG and to the complainant and other persons were allotted independent houses and flats. The opposite party produced the list for the perusal of the State Commission. According to the opposite party, the complainant was registered in 1973 in a financially weak group and on 30.5.79 as in LIG. The complainant was informed that house or flat has been reserved and that flat has been allotted to him. This information was sent through letter dated 7.6.85. Income group was changed as and when the complainant wanted. On 2.8.82 the complainant got himself registered in MIG 'a'. He was informed to deposit the seed money. By letter dated 7.6.85 the complainant was allotted a house by draw of a lottery which was independent as well as flats. According to the opposite party 431 persons were allotted flats and independent houses. It was stated that the complainant gave the option. Lotteries were drawn but he was not successful. It was submitted that it was not possible to allot the house previously. Claim for the award of rent was denied on the ground that when the complainant himself got registered in 1973 September as a financially weak person the question for granting of rent from 1971 does not arise. Increase in the cost was sought to be justified on the grounds of increase, in the cost of the material and increase in the labour charges. Under the head additional pleas it was submitted that on the basis of the judgment of the National Commission in M. M. Narsimha Reddy V/s. Managing Director, Maruti Udyog (Appeal No.1976/90 decided on 20.12.90) the complainant is not entitled to file the complaint. It was stated that the complainant wanted to have an independent house which was not possible about which information was given on 20.4.1988 to the complainant. It was submitted that on account of not taking the house (flat) the opposite party was put to financial loss. Any objections of limitation, and jurisdiction were raised. It appears that on 17.9.91 a rejoinder was filed without obtaining the leave from the State Commission. With that affidavit of the complainant was also submitted. Its copy was delivered to the opposite party. In the rejoinder it was stated that deliberately the file was lost for 10 years and his name was not included while drawing the lottery. As the name of the complainant was not included amongst the eligible or non-eligible candidates, the complainant informed the opposite party on which he was intimated that no record of registration is available and he was asked to produce the documents. Thereafter the complainant submitted the documents to the opposite party.