SANSARI LAL Vs. PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant has alleged that HIG House bearing No.730, Phase IX at S. A. S. Nagar, Mohali was allotted to him on 13.10.1984. He was required to deposit Rs.44,688.10 and after expiry of thirty days he was to be delivered physical possession of the aforesaid dwelling unit. On a request made by the complainant the period for making the aforesaid deposit was extended upto 31.1.85. The complainant tried to obtain possession of the aforesaid dwelling unit but it could not be possible because riot affected people had migrated from Punjab and they were in unauthorised possession of the premises in question. The allotment of the aforesaid dwelling unit has been cancelled on 9.7.85 on account of non-payment and for not taking possession, though it was not available for delivery of possession. The complainant wrote several letters on 30.10.84, 26.7.89, 13.12.90, 27.3.90, 30.4.90 and 31.6.91 requesting for restoration of the dwelling unit and annulling the order of cancellation but of no avail. The Housing Commissioner of the Board ordered on 26.7.92 in favour of the complainant but the respondent Board has failed to deliver possession. The complainant has prayed that the respondent be directed to hand over possession of the dwelling unit in question or in the alternative to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.6 lacs.

(2.) The respondent filed a reply wherein it has been averred that since it was not a movable property, the dwelling unit was not covered by the term "goods"; that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and the Commission at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction. Besides this on facts it has been averred that after expiry of the extended period 31.1.85 the complainant was served with a notice dated 8.4.85 but he failed to respond and the allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 9.7.1985. It has also been averred that the complainant failed to deposit the amount due in accordance with the allotment letter.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the complainant has referred to Lucknow Development Authority V/s. M. K. Gupta, 1993 3 CPJ 7 (SC), wherein it has been held that the Government or semi-Government body or a local authority is amenable to the Act as any other private body rendering similar service- Thus the contention raised by the Counsel for the complainant that the complaint as such is maintainable, is hereby answered in the affirmative. In this case a perusal of the allotment letter dated 18.10.84 Annexure C1 shows that the price of the dwelling unit was Rs.1,70,172/- and the complainant had only deposited the earnest money of Rs.3,000/-. Thereafter he was required to deposit a sum of Rs.42,543/- which was 25% of the tentative cost, but the complainant failed to fulfil this condition of the allotment letter Annexure C 1. We have also seen a copy of CWP No.15220 of 1990 decided on 6.3.91 which was attempted by Gursharan Kaur and 8 others regarding HIG 730, Phase IX, S. A. S. Nagar, Mohali, which was dismissed in limine. There is nothing to suggest in the aforesaid proceedings that Sansari Lal continued to be an allottee of HIG 730, Phase IX, S. A. S. Nagar, Mohali.