VINOD KUMAR SAXENA Vs. STATE EMPLOYEES HOUSING FEDERATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by Complainant whose complaint against respondents-the State Employees Housing Federation and the M. P. Housing Board has been dismissed by the District Forum Bhopal vide order dated 27.8.2002 in Case No.184/2001.

(2.) The respondent No.1 is a State Government owned Corporation constituted with a view to provide houses for the Government and public sector employees in the State. Respondent No.1-Corporation jointly with respondent No.2-M. P. Housing Board in the year 1989 undertook construction of some multi-storeyed flats in E-8, Sector Shahpura, Bhopal. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No.1, appellant-V. K. Saxena an employee in the State Government in July 1989 applied for allotment of one such house. He was initially allotted a D type flat on first floor on 12.7.1989, but later on replaced by C type flat on the ground floor on 22.10.1991. The estimated cost of this flat was fixed at Rs.1,31,148 which the appellant deposited by the end of year 1991. He was also put in possession of the house on 22.11.1991. On 1.4.1992 the appellant was granted a certificate by the Managing Director of respondent No.1-Corporation certifying that the appellant has deposited the entire estimated cost of the house and that the ownership of house has also vested in him. Appellant on 2.9.1994 made an application with respondent No.1 praying for final settlement of accounts and grant of no due certificate. In reply to this application, respondent No.1 raised an additional demand of Rs.6,707 and asked the appellant to deposit the same. The amount was deposited on the same day i. e. , 7.10.1994 by the appellant and thereafter a no due certificate was granted to him by the Corporation on 22.3.1995 clearly stating that the appellant has deposited Rs.41,448 towards cost of land and Rs.90,801 towards cost of house, total Rs.1,32,249 and that nothing is due from him towards the cost of the land and house except that he would be liable to pay lease rent, maintenance and common service charges regularly. He was also to bear expenses of execution and registration of transfer deeds. No further demand was thereafter raised by respondent No.1- Corporation and it appears that no action was taken by any party for execution of sale deed/lease deed of the house and land in question. The appellant in the meanwhile was allocated to the newly created State of Chhattisgarh and he, therefore, on 1.1.2001 made an application to respondent No.1-Corporation seeking permission for transfer of the house and sent reminders on 10.2.2001, 26.2.2001 and 9.3.2001. Respondent No.1 Corporation by its letter dated 23.3.2001 demanded a further sum of Rs.19,391 towards cost of the house before Complainant's prayer for transfer of the house could be considered. This is how a dispute arose between the parties and the Complainant approached the Forum below seeking quashment of this demand and direction to respondent No.1 Corporation to accord the necessary permission.

(3.) Respondent No.2 M. P. Housing Board is only a proforma party and no relief is sought against it either in the complaint or in appeal before this Commission.