BABULAL vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

HEARD. House No. 16-C in Govind Nagar of the Housing Board at Rajsamand was allotted to one Narayan Singh under hire purchase scheme. The said Narayan Singh transferred the aforesaid house to Sh. Babulal Khateek the present complainant appellant on 20.8.1999. The appellant applied to the respondent Housing Board on 6.3.2000 to register the transfer of the house in his name. Such transfer was recognised by the respondent Housing Board in the year 2000. The appellant deposited all the amount due against the sale consideration of the house in question, in lump sum on outright sale basis. He had already obtained the possession of the house from Narayan Singh, the original allottee. On 4.6.2001 the appellant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Housing Board with regard to non-refund of 5% of the amount of instalments paid/payable by the allottee till the date of transfer. He further claimed refund of Rs. 450/- which allegedly was charged from him in excess of the lease amount, refund of Rs. 4,617/- charged by the Housing Board on account of delay committed in paying the sale consideration of the house in question, refund of Rs. 66/- charged by the respondent Housing Board on account of premium of Insurance, though no insurance was ever obtained by them in respect of the house.

THE Housing Board contested the complaint on the ground that they had charged all the amount from the appellant as per rules in force. In main it was contended that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of rebate of 5% on unpaid instalments in view of Board''s circular dated 19.2.2000 and 10.2.2000. It was further submitted that with the transfer of possession of the house by the Raj. Housing Board to the original allottee the contract between the parties stood concluded subject to the condition of payment of instalments periodically by the original allottee. But once the appellant had purchased the house from the original allottee and had paid the instalments due from him and also the balance amount of the consideration, he seems to be consumer of the services of the respondent. THE Forum, partly allowing the complaint of the appellant directed the respondent to refund a sum of Rs. 450/- to him with interest @ 9% p.a. from 16.1.2001 and also refund the sum of Rs. 66/- charged by them on account of insurance policy, in case such policy has not been obtained by them. Relying upon Board''s circular dated 19.2.2000 and Paras 3(4) & (8) of circular dated 10.2.2000 it was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that he was entitled to the rebate of 5% which was wrongly withheld from him by the respondent. It was also urged that once he had applied for registration of the transfer of the house in his name from the name of the original allottee and some delay was caused in registering the transfer of the house in his name by the respondent Housing Board, the appellant could not have been made liable to pay any penalty by way of interest or otherwise for such delay. We however, find no force in such arguments. Paras 3(4) and (8) of circular dated 10.2.2000 reads as under : "xxx xxx xxx" It may be appreciated that rebate at 5% on unpaid instalments was available to such allottees who paid their outstanding periodical instalments by Feburary 2000. Para 8 clearly stated that such benefit would be available to the purchasers of the house in re-sale. A transfer of a house by a person to another cannot be called to be a "re-sale". In this behalf we accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that this word has been used in para 8 for those cases wherefor one reason or the other the original allottee fails to take possession of the house or the registration/allotment made in his favour stands cancelled and the house is then resold to another person either under hire purchase scheme or outright sale basis.

In the present case it is established on record that the original allottee was allotted the house in question on 31.12.1997. He was then required to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,518/- and further to pay a sum of Rs. 1,11,549/- with interest in 156 monthly instalments of Rs. 1,432/- . The original allottee had deposited the amount of Rs. 13,518/- and obtained the possession of the house. But it is also undisputed that he had not paid many of the periodical instalments in respect to the house in question and when such instalments were outstanding against him he had transferred the said house to the appellant on 20.8.1999. The appellant no doubt entered into of the original allottees in so far as the ownership and title of the house in question was concerned, but in order to avail the rebat of 5% he cannot be treated as the original allottee who had been a defaulter in payment of periodical instalments and had not paid such instalments as per circular dated 10.2.2000. The appellant was, therefore, not entitled to the rebate.

THE fact and circumstances of the case cleary speak that although the original allottee had transferred the house to the appellant on 20.8.1993 but the appellant himself applied for recognition and registration of transfer in his name as late as on 6.3.2000. THE respondent was justified in charging the penal interest under such circumstances on the amount of outstanding instalments. In view of the above we find no force in this appeal and dismiss it accordingly. Appeal dismissed.