DARSHAN KUMAR vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR HOUSING BOARD

-IN this case, the complainant was allotted house No. 1880/hig at Bahadurgarh (Jhajjar) by the Housing Board, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as Board) in a open auction which was held on 24. 10. 2001 and the bid amount was Rs. 5,26,000. The complainant deposited 25% of the amount i. e. Rs. 1,31,500 at the time of auction on 24. 10. 2001 and subsequently Rs. 78,900 on 25. 2. 2002. Hence after depositing 40% of the total value of the amount in question, possession was handed over to the complainant on 5. 3. 2002. As per condition of the Board, remaining amount was divided into 16 half-yearly instalments at the rate of Rs. 36,869 was to be paid by the complainant which was deposited in 3 instalments.

ON 7. 5. 2002 the Board demanded Rs. 32,147 as interest amount from the date of auction instead of taking date of possession for the purpose of commutation of interest. Dis-satisfied by this decision of the Board, he filed a complaint before the District Forum, Bahadurgarh which accepted the same and directed the Board to charge interest from the date of physical possession and not from the date of auction. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Board filed appeal before the State Commission, Haryana which observed that the liability of the complainant to pay interest shall accrue from the date of auction and not from the date of delivery of the possession of the house. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant has filed revision petition. The issue to be decided is whether interest should be charged from date of possession or from the date of auction. In this connection, it is worthwhile to go through Condition No. 3 of the agreement of sale which reads as follows: "remaining 60% amount of the sale price shall be paid either in lumpsum within 60 days of the issue of allotment letter or in 16 equated half-yearly instalments for eight years with interest @ 17% per annum (quarterly compounded) of Rs. 36,869 each. The first half-yearly instalment will be payable after six months of the date of auction".

(Emphasis supplied)This Clause No. 3 (supra) clarifies the issue. Accordingly, we do not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. Hence the revision petition is dismissed. R. P. dismissed.