(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 25.8.2003 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur allowing appeal against the order dated 25.4.196 of a District Forum and directing the petitioner/opposite party-Board to delivery possession of house No. 5/312 in Malviya Nagar Scheme to the respondent/complainant on his making payment of Rs. 3,68,934 and submitting the necessary documents.
(2.) In short, the facts giving rise to this revision are these. In order to purchase a residential house in Janta Income Group Category, the respondent submitted application on 13.11.1973 alongwith registration amount of Rs. 100 with the petitioner-Board. In view of change in income, the respondent applied for change in category of the house in the year 1980 and again in 1981 and deposited the amount as demanded by the petitioner-Board for change in category. On 1.5.1987, the petitioner informed the respondent that a house in MIG B category had been reserved for him and he was asked to deposit the seed money in two installments of Rs. 6,000/- each which he deposited on 10.9.1987 and 16.12.1987. In the draw of lots held on 17.10.1987, house No. 10/73 in Mansarovar Scheme was allotted by the petitioner to allot a house in Malviya Nagar Scheme of the same category. On the recommendation of Public Allotment Committee, the respondent was allotted house No. 13/35 in Malviya Nagar Scheme sometime in the year 1988. On possession of this house not being given, the respondent alleging deficiency in service filed complaint dated 15.6.1992 before the District Forum claiming possession of the said house and compensation. Complaint was contested by the petitioner-Board. It was, inter alia, alleged that on verification, it was revealed that house No. 13/35 in Malviya Nagar Scheme had already been allotted to one J.S. Johri and possession thereof also handed over to him. Allotment letter dated 10.9.1992 for another house No. 5.312 in Malviya Nagar Scheme had been issued to the respondent. District Forum dismissed the complaint. On that order being challenged by the respondent, the appeal was disposed of by the State Commission in the manner noticed above.
(3.) Submission advanced by Mr. Narottam Vyas for the Board was that the complaint filed by respondent was barred by limitation; facts in F.A. No. 1731 of 1994, Yudhistra Saxena v. Rajasthan Housing Board, on which reliance was placed by the State Commission had acted erroneously in holding that petitioner is not entitled to charge any amount on the sale consideration of Rs. 3,68,934 from the respondent. As regards plea of limitation, after allotment of house No. 13/35 in Malviya Nagar Scheme in April 1988, the respondent had been pressing the petitioner to handover possession of that house and on the petitioner's failure to give possession thereof, complaint was filed on 15.6.1996. It was only in the written version that the petitioner-Board came with the plea that said house No. 13/35 had already been allotted to one J.S. Johri and possession thereof given to him and petitioner had issued allotment letter of another house No. 5/312 in Malviya Nagar Scheme on 10.9.1992 to the respondent. In that backdrop, date of allotment of said house No. 13/35 cannot be taken as starting point of limitation for the purpose of limitation and complaint must be held to have been filed within limitation period.