BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD Vs. PRIO RANJAN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two cross appeals are against the order dated 2.4.93 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar in case No. 52 of 1991.

(2.) The complainant, Shri Prio Ranjan Roy was allotted House No. 3 K 43 (with an area 0.077 acre) under the Low Income Group Housing (LIG) Scheme in Mohalla Bariyatu, Ranchi Town on 28.3.66 by an order of the Government of Bihar and an agreement was registered between the complainant and the Government of Bihar on 1.8.66. Tentative price of the house was fixed at Rs. 14,000/- at that time. Thereafter, the District Development Officer, Ranchi wrote to the Executive Engineer, Housing Department, Ranchi directing him to hand over possession of the said house to the complainant. In the meanwhile, the complainant paid the first instalment of Rs. 3,000/- as stipulated and also subsequent instalments on several dates aggregating to Rs. 2,260/- but possession of the allotted house was not given to him and instead, it was allotted to one Smt. Ishwari Devi. On 2.2.69, another order was issued allotting house No. 3K 91 to the complainant which according to him was in a most dilapidated condition and was not worthy of habitation and he, therefore, laid down certain conditions for taking this house in lieu of the originally allotted house No. 3K 43. Though according to the complainant almost all conditions were accepted by the Board, possession of house No. 3K 91 also was not given to him. The Bihar State Housing Board which was constituted in 1972 after taking over all the assets and liabilities of the Housing Department of the State Government in respect of allotment of plots/ houses took a decision to allot house No. 3K 91 to Smt. Sumitra Devi, a Minister in the State Government. As a result, no house was given to the complainant even though he satisfied all the preconditions. The complainant alleged before the State Commission that because of this, he had been put to difficulty with regard to residential accommodation after his retirement in 1984, that he had paid Rs. 57,500.50 till the date of the complaint (7.10.91) as rent for hired accommodation and that the landlord of the house had filed an eviction suit in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Ranchi and for increase in monthly rent amounting to Rs. 5,000/- per month. In view of these difficulties, the complainant prayed before the State Commission the following reliefs : a compensation of Rs. 6,25,000/- for the harassment caused to him, a sum of Rs. 57,500/- paid by him as rent and refund of Rs. 5,300/ - paid by him to the Housing Board alongwith interest @ 18%. In their version before the State Commission, the Board made the following points : (i) The State Government which had originally allotted the house in favour of the complainant had not been made a party; (ii) The dispute is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act as the Board is not carrying on any business of house properties and it is a statutory body constituted for making available plots and houses to people; (iii) The matter of alternative allotment to be made in favour of the complainant was still pending before the Board.

(3.) The State Commission took note of the fact that in the version of the Board, the facts as contended by the complainant in his complaint which was duly supported by an affidavit filed by him have not been disputed and reference to various orders and letters have been said to be matters "on record". Since the Housing Board took over all the liabilities and assets from the Government, the Commission held that it was not necessary to implead the Government as a party. Gn the question of jurisdiction, the Commission relied on the findings of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Garima Shukla & Ors., I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC)=(1991) Consumer Cases 151, and held the Complaint is maintainable. Regarding the matter of alternative allotment, the State Commission pointed out that it gave a number of opportunities to the Board to finalise the pending matter, but the Board kept on postponing the matter time and again.