BISWANATH PATNAIK vs SECRETARY, ORISSA STATE HOUSING BOARD

THIS is an appeal by the complainant alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Orissa State Housing Board for not executing the agreement for transfer of the shop-cum-residential house, Basanti Colony, Rourkela allotted to the complainant and given possession long since. It is the case of the complainant that he has been allotted the shop-cum-residential house by the Board since 1992 i.e., 28.8.1992. Provisional costs of the house was Rs. 77,465/- which was subsequently raised to Rs. 92,000/- on final costing. It is his case that he out of the final costs of the house immediately paid Rs. 46,000/- and the rest Rs. 46,000/- being the 50 per cent of the final costs has been paid by him by timely instalments which ended sometime during June, 1997. When he asked the Board to get the deed registered, it is his case he was demanded Rs. 6,080/- as an amount still remaining unpaid towards the costs of the building. It is his further case, that he was liable to pay interest at the rate of 7.75 per cent but the Board charged him at the rate of 8.75 per cent which is illegal.

THE Board filed a written version in which they took the stand that since the complainant still remained liable to pay Rs. 6,080/- towards the differential costs of the house which he is bound to pay, question of executing an agreement did not arise. We have heard the complainant in person and Mr. Somonath Misra, the learned Counsel for the Board and we have perused the documents on record. So far as the dispute with regard to charging of interest either at the rate of 7.75 per cent or 8.75 per cent is concerned, we cannot accept the case of the Board that 7.75 per cent of interest was mentioned in the agreement inadvertently. We cannot accept at this length of time such a plea. Therefore, we hold that the complainant was only liable to pay interest at the rate of 7.75 per cent and not 8.75 per cent. But this should not be taken to be the rate of interest prescribed by us for all transaction of this nature by the Board for that relevant period. It is only peculiar to the complainant''s case alone.

The allotment order and all other documents from the side of the Board do indicate that the final cost of the house was Rs. 92,000/-. They have also admitted that the complainant has paid all the instalments in time. Their only case is the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 6,080/- towards the differential costs. Our attention is drawn to Annexure-A dated 27.2.1983 by Mr. Misra who submitted that the letter has long since issued to indicate him to pay the differential amount. On a careful reading we find, it has been mentioned in that letter that differential amount of costs as charged was in respect of MIG House but not in respect of a shop-cum-residential house. Therefore, complainant had every reason not to accept that demand. In the subsequent letters Annexures B and C no doubt it has been mentioned shop-cum-residence at Basanti Colony, but still then Mr. Misra was unable to explain as to how and in what manner this amount is being demanded. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set-aside the order of the District Forum and direct the Board to hand over the complainant a duly registered deed of transfer within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. No cost. Appeal allowed.