P GOPALA SUBREHMANYAN Vs. VICE CHAIRMAN HOUSING COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is an allottee of Flat no.40 (First Floor Flat) in Phase No.5 Kukatpalle under Self Financing Housing Scheme. The Opposite party is Vice Chairman, and Housing Commissioner of A. P. Housing Board, Hyderabad. The reliefs claimed in the complaint are : (a) Awarding payment of compensation for delaying handing over the possession of the Flat beyond January, 1990; (b) Ordering refund of the enhanced cost of the Flat collected without seeking the extension of the two year limit from the Government and (c) Instructing A. P. Housing Board to complete construction of the Flat and hand over possession of the Flat with all facilities including electricity and water urgently.

(2.) The complaint came to be filed in the following circumstances. The opposite party on 10.5.1987 notified the proposed construction of flats at the places mentioned in the notification including Kukatpalle under self Financing Housing Scheme. According to the notification the higher income group, i. e. four storied flats, will have an approximate plinth area of 812.72 sft. for each flat and the approximate cost was mentioned as Rs.1,28,000/- and 10% of the cost is to be paid along with the application. In the notification it was also mentioned that the flat will be completed in all respects within a period of 18 months from the date of the execution of the agreement unless circumstances beyond control of the board warrant extension of the period which shall not exceed 2 years. Under condition No.10 of the scheme after the flats are completed and ready for occupation flat numbers will be assigned by drawal of lots to the selected applicants. The complainant applied for higher income group flat and paid initial amount along with the application. The agreement for sale was entered into between the parties on 7.1.88. In the said agreement under clause 2 the purchaser i. e. the complainant agreed to pay to the board the difference between the estimated cost and final cost. Under clause 3 of the agreement on purchaser paying full estimated cost and other costs if any payable by him under this indenture the opposite party shall convey the flat to the purchaser by executing regular conveyance deed. Subsequently, on 16.8.90 the opposite party informed the complainant that during execution due to some exigencies and due to some additional items and due to exorbitant prices collected towards laying pipes for Manjeera water and electrical lines the cost of the flats had been increased. It was notified that in the first floor flats of higher income group there is increase in the plinth area from 812.72 sft. to 899.32 sft. and that therefore the cost has been increased from 1,28,000/- to 1,53,500/-. It was also mentioned that the delay in giving possession of the flats is due to the reason that Hyderabad Metro Waterworks Department could not complete the construction of OHSR and laying of feeder line and distribution lines which are likely to be completed shortly. In view of this escalation of cost it was notified that the allottees of flats in other than ground floor are requested to make necessary arrangements for payment of Rs.20,500/- on or before 16.9.90 before conducting lottery and before assigning the flats. It was further informed that the allottee who gets first floor flat had to remit a further sum of Rs.5,000/- before taking possession of the flat. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter the complainant paid the amount of Rs.20,500/- on 5.10.1990 subsequent to the date notified. Lots were drawn on 20.1.1991 in which the complainant got the first floor flat i. e. flat no.40. By intimation letter No.118265/ LM.8/rhe : WD/91 dated 15.2.1991 the opposite party informed the complainant that he got the first floor flat, he has to pay further sum of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.5,000/-as intimated in the above letter dated 15.2.91. The opposite party on 27.5.91 informed the complainant to take possession of the flat at the spot.

(3.) Complaining that the opposite party has not obtained sanction of extension of two years limit for enhancement of the cost of flat from government and is also not in a position to give possession of the flat with all amenities including electricity and water even now and as the complainant should have been intimated to take over the possession of the flat within a period of two years, January, 1990 the above C. D. Case is filed for the three reliefs already mentioned.