TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD Vs. T V SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party is the appellant in the appeal filed against the O. P. No.171/98 on the file of the District Forum, Madurai.

(2.) The case of the complainant is as follows: he was informed by the opposite party by letter dated 3.2.1988 to take over the house since the entire cost of Rs.1,01,500 for the building had been received. The outright sale of the house to the complainant by the opposite party was complete and final as per the report dated 4.2.1988 and ever since the complainant had been paying the maintenance charge of Rs.100 per month. The opposite party was duty-bound to execute the sale deed after expiry of the period of 5 years from the date of taking possession as per Clause 17 of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Flat Scheme. Five years period expired on 3.2.1993. However, by letter dated 31.12.1997 the opposite party demanded payment of Rs.43,067 being the balance of cost of the flat on or before 10.1.1998. No details were found in that letter. The complainant sent a letter dated 22.1.1998 stating that no amount was due from him to the opposite party. The opposite party by letter dated 6.4.1998 finally informed the complainant that the balance of Rs.44,359 should be remitted on 30.4.1998. The question of failure to remit the full cost did not arise. The opposite party's computation and calculation of claiming Rs.1,49,852 and demand of Rs.43,067 or Rs.44,359 was illegal, improper and unjust and not a condition precedent for execution of the sale deed.

(3.) The opposite party resisted the complaint contending, inter alia, that the complainant had not paid the entire cost. The rate fixed by the opposite party was tentative and not final cost, that the final cost would be decided only just before the time of execution of sale deed by considering the land cost and capitalization and maintenance charges, since the land cost might be modified or verified according to the land acquisition proceedings and other proceedings pending before the various Courts. The complainant had to pay the capitalization charges and other maintenance charges even if they had been left out at the time of handing over the house. The complainant could not take advantage that the capitalization charges were not demanded by the Board as per the calculation done at the time of handing over the house. The Board had power to collect all the leftout charges as per the agreement. The complainant could not take advantage of the Clause 17 of the agreement since the sale deed could be executed only after the clearing of all dues. The Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction. The demand of the opposite party was correct. There was no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The demand was not barred by limitation.