PRIO RANJAN ROY Vs. BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Complaint filed by Mr. Prio Ranjan Roy against the Housing Board, Bihar. In the complaint petition it has been averred by the complainant that as early as 28.3.66 he was allotted House No.3k43 by a Government order and the required deed registration was executed on the 15th May, 1966 which was duly registered on 1.8.66. After registration of the deed the District Development Officer, Ranchi wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer, Housing Department, Ranchi directing him to hand over possession of House No.3k43 to Shri Roy. This house was located in Mohalla Bariyatu of Ranchi Town. Shri Roy also paid the first installment of Rs.3,000/- as stipulated and inspite of the specific order from the District Collectorate to the Executive Engineer of the Housing Department the possession of the house allotted to him was not given. Again on 13.7.67 a Government order was issued for handing over possession of the house to the complainant. The possession of the allotted house, however, continued to elude Shri Roy. On 2.2.69 another order was issued allotting House No.2k91 to Shri Roy. This house according to the complainant was in a most dilapidated condition and was not worthy of habitation, and he, therefore, laid down certain conditions for getting House No.3k91 in lieu of House No.3k43 which was originally allotted to him in the Bariyatu Housing Colony. In Annexure-IX of the complaint petition it has been said that all conditions imposed were accepted excepting payment of standard rent to him. The possession of House No.3k91 was also not given to him and this house, it has been averred by Shri Roy, continued in the illegal possession of Smt. Sumitra Devi. It has been contended by the complainant Smt. Sumitra Devi was a Minister of the State Government and did not belong to Low Income Group category and hence could not have been allotted House No.3k91. The possession of House No.3k43 originally allotted to him was given to one Smt. Ishwari Devi.

(2.) The Bihar State Housing Board was constituted in the year 1972 after taking over all the assets and liabilities of the Housing Department of the State Government in respect of allotment of plots/ "houses and it was the Housing Board which took a decision on 16.9.74 to allot House No.3k91 to Smt. Sumitra Devi. The net result in respect of the complainant has been that no house has been given in the possession of Shri Roy even though he satisfied all the pre-conditions. The complainant has averred that he approached the authorities in the Housing Board as also the Government but to no avail and he says he has been running from pillar to post in vain. Till date no house has been allotted to him and he has been put to difficulty with regard to a residential accommodation for himself after retirement in 1984. He contends that because of the house having not been given in his possession he had to hire residential accommodation on rent and he has paid Rs.57,500/-as rent till the date of complaint (7.10.91 ). He was forced to hire the private house because of the house allotted to him by the Housing Department was not made over to him in physical possession. He has also averred that the landlord of the rental house has also filed an eviction suit No.78/90 in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Ranchi and for increase in monthly rental amounting to Rs.5,000/- per month. On account of these difficulties which he has been facing on account of the physical possession of the house have not been made over to him he has sought the following reliefs under the Consumer Protection Act : 1. A compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- for the harassment cause to him.2. A sum of Rs.57,500/- paid by him as rent.

(3.) Refund of Rs.5,300/- paid by him to the Housing Board as per terms and conditions of the Board in his favour alongwith interest @ 18%. The opposite party - The Housing Board have filed their show cause and in this petition they have made the following points : - 1. The State Government which had originally allotted the house in favour of Shri Roy has not been a party.2. This dispute about the allotment of house to him is not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the Board is not carrying on any business of House Properties rather it is a statutory body constituted for making available plots and houses to people.3. The matter of alternative allotment to be made in favour of Shri Roy is still pending with the authorities of the Board and taking all these facts in the consideration it has been contended that the complaint filed by Shri Roy is fit to be dismissed. It will be worthwhile to point out here that in the show cause petition the facts as contended in the complaint petition of Shri Roy which has been duly supported by an affidavit filed by him has not been disputed and reference to various orders and letters have been said to be matters 'on record'.3. We have heard the learned Advocates for the Housing Board and the complainant and there is no doubt in our minds that allotment was duly made in favour of Shri Roy in the year 1966, but he was not given possession of the allotted house in spite registration of the deed and in spite of Shri Roy having fulfilled all the conditions enjoined within the terms of the allotment. Instead the house was allotted to Smt. Ishwari Devi. Thereafter another house was allotted in his favour but the possession of the house was not given to him even though specially ordered. So done after the house habitable in lieu of the earlier allotment. This house was allotted to Smt. Sumitra Devi. Thereafter no other allotment has been made in his favour and even though much before his retirement he took steps for having an accommodation for himself, he had to hire a rented accommodation after his retirement in the year 1984. As for the point raised by the opposite party that the Secretary to the Government in the Housing Department was a necessary party suffice it would to refer to Sec.63 (1) of the Housing Board Act which lays down that all asset and liabilities relating to the work of allotment of houses/plots of the Housing Department of the State Government transferred to the Housing Board from the date of the Housing Board was constituted in 1972. Since the Housing Board took over all responsibilities and the assets of the Government it was not necessary for the complainant to make the State Government a party in the complaint filed by him.