G.D.A. vs RATAN SINGH

THIS is a revision against the order dated 2.7.1994 passed by the District Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 273/93. Earlier instead of revision an appeal against the order of the G.D.A. was filed. On scrutiny of papers it was found that the appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum, Ghaziabad dated 2.7.1994. THIS order was for execution of the judgment/order dated 4.9.1993 in Complaint Case No. 273/93. Since, the appeal does not lie in such cases and only a revision petition lies, the only way out is to suo motu convert the appeal into revision petition and is being decided accordingly.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant Ratan Singh filed a complaint before the District Forum, Ghaziabad stating that in response to a scheme launched by the G.D.A., he applied for a M.I.G. flat. THE scheme floated by the revisionist was for allotment of M.I.G. type houses in a double storey complex. THE complainant was successful in the draw of lots and paid instalments partly in time and partly delayed for which penal interest was also paid by him. In this way an amount of Rs. 65,010/- had been deposited by the complainant till September, 1990. A possession letter was issued by the revisionist in September, 1991 and lease rent was also demanded. On inspection of the property thus allotted, the complainant found that the total area of the house in question had been reduced by 10 sq. metres and instead of the flat being allotted in double storey the allotment of the flat was made in the triple storey. The complainant was not willing to be allotted a flat in a triple storey complex because he wanted allotment only in a double storey scheme thus, causing deficiency in service. The complainant claimed interest on the deposited amount by way of compensation alongwith the return of the amount deposited by him. The applicant-opposite party in the case contested before the District Forum that the Authority has right to change the layout of the house as also the scheme. The cost of the house can also be increased as early as only the approximate cost was given in the allotment letter.

Keeping in view the large number of appellant, the Authority changed the scheme from double storey flat to triple storey flat. The appellant had not earned profits and is prepared to give possession to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to receive any interest.

THE District Forum after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the complainant was not informed of the change in the scheme of double storey to triple storey flat and continued to take instalments from the complainant under the caption double storey. It was only in 1991 when the possession letter was issued, caption was changed from double storey to triple storey. Since, the complainant never wanted the flat in the triple storey, therefore, he is entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him. The District Forum, therefore, ordered that the amount deposited by the complainant be returned to him with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit.

IN pursuance of this judgment/order passed by the District Forum, Ghaziabad, the same District Forum passed an order on 2.7.1994 that interest on reservation/registration money deposited by the complainant shall also be paid to him. The same was allowed in the judgment/order dated 4.9.1993. As such against this order passed in execution proceedings, the G.D.A. filed an appeal which was later on treated as revision. We have gone through the record and also heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. Ram Raj and learned Counsel for the opposite party Mr. M.H. Khan. In the grounds of revision, the G.D.A. has stated that it was duly competent to alter the scheme in case administrative exigencies arose. This is also stipulated in the brochure. The revisionist in compliance of the order of the District Forum dated 4.9.1993 refunded the amount of Rs. 98,500/-. The District Forum in Ghaziabad in execution proceeding modified its judgment/order dated 4.9.1993 on 2.7.1994 directing to pay the interest on registration money. In view of this the District Forum has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it. The judgment/order dated 4.9.1993 passed by the District Forum had become final under Section 24 of the C.P.A. 1986 and there was no question of modification of its earlier order dated 4.9.1993. The provisions of the brochure issued by the revisionist provide deduction from the reservation/registration amount in case the allotment is cancelled. The opposite party Ratan Singh filed objection against the grounds of revision. The reservation/registration money deposited by the complainant is payable by the G.D.A. In this connection the letter of reservation dated 22.10.1988, Annexure "H" and the letter of allotment and possession dated 9.9.1991, Annexure "G" placed on file are worth perusal. In the allotment letter dated 9.9.1991 the final cost of house is shown as Rs. 64,210/- but the demanded amount was shown as Rs. 65,000/-. Lease rent of the house was shown as Rs. 580/- the due date of which was 30.9.1991. In the reservation letter dated 22.10.1998 the estimated cost shown in Rs. 65,000/- and the registration amount of Rs. 6,500/- was shown as already paid. It is clear that the registration amount was included in the amount of Rs. 65,000/-. The District Forum in its judgment/order dated 4.9.1993 held that by September, 1990 the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 65,010/-. It clearly goes to show that the amount of registration/reservation is also included. The normal practice with the G.D.A. is that the registration/reservation amounts are deposited first and are adjusted against the total amount to be paid at the later stage. The Counsel for the applicant has stated that part payment of Rs. 98,500/- has already been made in compliance of the order of the District Forum. He has argued that interest of reservation/registration amount should not be calculated while paying the interest. This is a fictitious argument as the registration/reservation amount is included in the cost of the house. The arguments of the Counsel for the applicant that although the scheme of the double storey was later converted into the triple storey houses and the Authority had right to change the scheme do not hold good because all through the period when the complainant was depositing the instalments with the applicant he was given to understand that the scheme of double storey continues. If the scheme was changed then the allottees should have been informed so that they could have the choice to opt out of the scheme. It is a fact that the triple storey houses in North India are inconvenient as compared to double storey houses. Moreover, in the double storey houses the area earlier proposed in the double storey houses was reduced. Therefore, the complainant had genuine grievance and the G.D.A. fell far short of providing commensurate services to the complainant for which he had already paid. The Counsel for the opposite party Mr. M.H. Khan states that the appeal is not maintainable and it was not against the judgment and order dated 4.9.1993, rather it was filed against the order in execution proceeding, the order passed on 2.7.1994. The appeal as stated in the earlier part of the judgment is being treated as revision.

WE have gone through the order dated 2.7.1994 in execution proceeding passed by the District Forum. The order says that the interest of the registration/reservation amount also be paid to the complainant as directed in the order and judgment dated 4.9.1993. It clearly states that the total amount deposited by the complainant was Rs. 65,010/- which includes the amount of registration/reservation and the interest @ 18% per annum was ordered to be paid to the complainant alongwith the originally deposited amount of Rs. 65,010/- to the decree holder. The result is that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Order The revision petition is dismissed and order dated 2.7.1994 of the Distt. Forum, Ghaziabad is confirmed. Let copies be made available to the parties as per rules. Revision Petition dismissed.