RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. R C BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST Appeal No. 620 of 1994 is directed against the Order dated 30th of May, 1994 passed by the Rajasthan State Commission at Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 119 of 1992 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 1,85,000 / - at the rate of 15% per annum for the period commencing from 1st April, 1990 to 30th April, 1992 and also to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 3,08,900/ - from 1st May, 1992 to l5th October, 1992 at the rate of 15% per annum besides costs of Rs. 1000/ -.

(2.) THE facts are not in dispute and may be briefly noticed. The complainant got himself registered in the Self -Financing Scheme, 1987, of the Rajasthan Housing Board, opposite party before the State Commission -appellant herein, on 10.11.87 and deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - along with his application. The complainant also asked the opposite party to treat his payment of Rs. 10,000/ - made earlier as deposit alongwith the said amount and thus a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - came to be deposited by the complainant on 10.11.87. The opposite party in its letter dated 6.2.88 called upon the complainant to deposit the tentative cost of Rs. 1,85,000/ - in 4 six - monthly instalments during the period 15.3.88 to 15.9.89 with liberty to adjust the amount of Rs. 20.000/ - in the 4th instalment. The complainant deposited the total amount of Rs. 1,85,000/ - in instalments by 15.9.89. Clause 5.5 of the Scheme provided that in case the opposite party did not deliver the possession of the house after construction within 2 years, it would pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum commencing from after the expiry of 2 years till the delayed date for delivery of possession. The opposite party, however, completed the construction of the houses, including the one allotted to the complainant, only by January, 1992. A lottery was drawn up on 29.1.92 and house No. 11 /946, Coopasni Housing Board was allotted to the complainant. A demand notice, dated 5.2.92, i.e., allotment -cum -possession letter, was issued to the complainant intimating to him that the total cost of the house had came upto Rs. 3,08,900/ - and that the complainant was required to deposit Rs. 1,96,098/ - latest by 5.9.92 and to obtain possession of the said house. However, later on a revised letter was issued by the opposite party on 9.4.92 intimating to the complainant to deposit only Rs. 1,10,914/ - because the balance amount had already been deposited by the complainant. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 90,914/ - on 25.4.92 and balance amount of Rs. 20,000/ - on 4.5.92 by demand draft and submitted the requisite papers as desired by the opposite party in its letter dated 5.2.92. The possession of the house was, however, delivered to the complainant on 15.10.92.

(3.) AFTER being noticed, the opposite party filed its written version. The facts noticed in the earlier part of the order were not disputed. The State Commission opined on the basis of the provisions contained in the Self -Financing Scheme, that the applicants who had applied for registration under the Self -Financing Scheme of 1987 reasonably expected that they would get possession of the house in two years of the issue of reservation letter in their favour and the cost of the house would approximately be Rs. 1,85,000/ - subject, of course, to certain escalation in the cost of construction due to any reason. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the opposite party failed to place any documentary evidence on record as to when the opposite party started the construction of the house of the complainant after the issue of the reservation letter dated 6.7.88 and that the entire documentary evidence regarding starting of the construction of the house and its completion was within the possession of the opposite party and they have failed to produce. The State Commission concluded that the opposite party had not started construction of the house upto the middle of the year, 1990 despite the projected fact as the approximate period of the delivery of the possession of the house was to be 2 years. The State Commission also recorded a finding that the possession had been delivered to the complainant only on 15.10.92 despite the fact that the complainant had furnished the acceptance letter undertaking, the affidavit on 27.4.92 and the entire amount deposited on 4.5.92. The State Commission allowed the complaint and granted the reliefs as noticed above.