AMAR NATH HAIT vs CHAIRMAN, WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD

THIS is an appeal against an order dated 4.12.95 passed by the Calcutta District Forum in C.D.F. Case No. 891 /95. The aforesaid case was filed by the complainant-appellant following a dispute over the surrender of a flat under the Konnagar Housing Project, Phase-I. The appellant''s case is that he was allotted a TypeB flat under the aforesaid project on the basis of a Lottery by depositing an initial amount of Rs. 15,000/-. The Lottery was drawn on 7.7.93. Subsequent to the Lottery he was given a provisional letter of allotment and was asked to deposit Rs. 64,722/- but the appellant actually deposited Rs. 65,000/-. In the meantime, the appellant had also applied for a flat under the Dankuni Housing Project, Phase-II. He deposited an application money of Rs. 25,000/- for the said flat at Dankuni. A Lottery was held for the flat at Dankuni on 25.3.94. The appellant was successful in the said Lottery also. He intended to purchase the flat at Dankuni. As the applicant was not entitled to get two flats simultaneously under the West Bengal Housing Board, the appejlant took prompt step for surrender of the flat at Konnager. He, accordingly, filed an application to the Assistant Housing Commissioner1,105, S.N. Banerjee Road, Calcutta-14. The Assistant Superintendent-Lone Mr. R.K. Dey made an endorsement on the application informing that the applicant was entitled to get refund of the entire amount deposited under the Konnagar Project in terms of Condition Nos. 3,4 read with 1.4 of the General Terms and Conditions for the allotment of the flat. The term embodied in Clause 3.4 is as follows : "in the event of rejection of application on the ground of the applicant becoming successful in Lottery in any other scheme or more than one Member of the same family becoming successful in Lottery, application money alongwith interest at the rate applicable to savings Bank deposit account will be refunded."

IN the meantime, the appellant inspected the allotted flat and after observing the condition of the flat which had defective construction he requested the Project Authorities at Dankuni to replace the flat by a better one. As, however, the Authorities did not comply with his request he ultimately opted not to purchase the flat. The Authorities of the Konnagar Housing Project in the meantime made arrangement for the refund of the money and on 4.11.94 they refunded the money deposited for the Konnager Housing Project but after deducting 10% of the entire amount deposited there. But aggrieved at this order of the Housing Board the appellant filed a complaint before the Calcutta District Forum demanding that the order of the Housing Board to deduct 10% of the money was improper. The learned District Forum after hearing the matter ex-parte held that the Board''s decision was correct and accordingly dismissed the case. The present appeal has been preferred against the said order of the District Forum.

The point for determination in this appeal is if the Forum''s order was correct and if not, what relief the appellant is entitled to DECISION

THE admitted position in this case is that the appellant was offered two flats under two different Housing Schemes at Konnager and Dankuni and he was to choose anyone of them. Evidently, he could not own two flats at two different places simultaneously under the allotment of the Housing Board. Term No. 3.4 quoted above which refers to the ineligibility of a person to obtain more than one flats simultaneously. THE appellant was, therefore, correctly advised to surrender one of the flats. But unfortunately, the Board treated the surrender as cancellation of the flat. Is this interpretation of the Board correct ? The question of cancellation of a flat implies that there was some default on the part of the allottee. In this case, the appellant having been allotted two flats simultaneously was bound to surrender one. He was not entitled to retain both the flats under the rules of the Board itself. The learned Lawyer for the appellant submits that the Board had actually agreed to adjust the amount refundable for the Konnagar flat towards the Dankuni flat. It was a reasonable attitude on the part of the Board. In view of the endorsement of Mr. Dey on the body of the petition for surrender of the flat it can be accepted that the Board was actually agreeable to refund the entire money deposited for the Konnagar flat. The sudden change of attitude on the part of the Board has not been explained. As a matter of fact, the Board did not contest before the Forum and the case was heard ex-parte before the Forum. So, the action of the Board in deducting 10% of the deposited money from the appellant cannot be supported. It was, in our opinion, a palpably wrong decision. The District Forum''s order is, therefore, manifestly bad and is liable to be set aside.

THIS appeal, therefore, succeeds. The appeal is allowed on contest and the order dated 4.12.95 passed by the Calcutta District Forum in C.D.F. Case No. 91/95 is set aside. The complainant''s case before the said Forum is allowed. The opposite parties in the said case are directed to refund a further amount of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) and a cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees on thousand only) to the complainant. The entire amount will carry an interest @ 15% p.a. with effect from 4.11.94 i.e. from the date of order of refund of the money to the complainant. Appeal allowed with costs.