Mahesh Chand Tyagi vs Rajasthan Housing Board and Anr.

This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint and the relief sought and granted by the District Forum.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner registered himself as a prospective buyer of house with the respondent 7-Board by paying Rs. 4,600 in 1982. Petitioner changed his option and opted for purchase of a flat to be constructed by the respondent under scheme in Sanganer and also deposited Rs. 40,000 in three instalments. Reservation letter in this regard was issued on 18.8.1992 and an allotment letter was also issued on 31.1.1994. For some reasons, having accepted flat in pursuance of which he deposited three above mentioned instalments, he declined to take possession and did not deposit the required balance amount.

Respondent-Board came up with another scheme called Mansrovar in Jaipur on 13.5.1994. The petitioner applied for an independent house under the scheme and finally got it. Before taking possession of this house under Mansrovar scheme, the petitioner applied for refund of amount deposited by him under Sanganer scheme which the respondent-Board did return but after deducting 20% therefrom as per their rules. It is this which is the bone of contention and for which the petitioner approached the District Forum, who after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and ordered refund of Rs. 20,062 (Rs. 18.975 being the 20% deducted amount plus Rs. 1,087 as interest thereon) and payment of cost of Rs. 1,000. On filing an appeal by the respondent-Board, the order of the District Forum was set aside on the ground that there has been no deficiency on the part of the respondent-Board. It is against this finding that petitioner has filed the Revision Petition before us.

It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for an independent house whereas he was given a flat which is a deficiency in itself. Even though scheme was floated in 1982 yet the respondent-Board issued allotment letter for a flat only on 31.1.1994. As this allotment was not as per his option, the petitioner declined to accept the allotment of flat. He again applied for independent house on 13.5.1994 under a new scheme floated by the respondent-Board for which he deposited the full amount and got possession. Since the authority for both the schemes was the same, and the petitioners plea throughout has been for an independent house, the respondent-Board should have adjusted the amount already deposited with them in the final cost of the new independent house allotted to him. Instead of adjusting this amount, what the respondent-Board did was to refund the amount deposited earlier, after deducting 20%, on which they had no right. The order of the District Forum was right ordering refund of the thus deducted amount with interest. This should be restored and order of the State Commission be set aside. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that petitioner is trying to mix the issues. According to him, the petitioner had earlier applied under the Sanganer scheme, he exercised his option for allotment of a flat on lump sum payment basis, which was allotted. He did not pay further instalments and refused to take possession. On his request money has been refunded to him with interest after deducting 20% as per rules. He independently applied under Mansrover scheme, paid for it and got an independent house. There is nothing common between these two schemes, order of the State Commission is correct and need to be maintained.

We have seen material on record and heard the arguments. There is no dispute on the basic facts, i.e. the petitioner registered himself under Sanganer scheme in 1982. He was given a priority number, he again exercised option for purchasing a flat on a lump sum basis in 1992. He was again given a new priority number, the petitioner deposited three instalments totalling Rs. 40.000 and then stopped paying and also refused to take possession. In all he had deposited Rs. 44,600. In the meantime, he also applied for another scheme called "Mansrover" in Jaipur. Before taking possession under the scheme he applied for refund of money deposited under Sanganer scheme, which was done but after deducing 20% as per rules. We see that there were two separate independent schemes floated by the respondent Board in two different localities. He was successful under both, at the appropriate time. It is not in dispute that the petitioner exercised option to go on for a flat to be purchased on lump sum basis in pursuance of which he also paid three instalments thus clearly symbolising his acceptance to go in for a flat. There is no disagreement on this count. He applied for an independent house under Mansrover scheme, gets an allotment and gets a house. There is nothing on record that he at any time applied to the respondent Board for adjusting the already deposited amount against the total cost of the new house. On the contrary what the record shows is, his demand for refund of this amount. It is not challenged that the Board cannot deduct 20% on surrendering the allotment of a flat. We find that there were two independent schemes having their own independent existence, even though promoted by the same respondent Board. We have also carefully gone through the notification dated 13.5.1994 of floating the Mansrover scheme and find that it states, that people who have not been allotted/not take possession of the flat/house under a scheme of the Board for any income group, will get seniority over other applicants. Two points need to be mentioned in this regard. Firstly that Registration letter under Sanganer scheme, had already been issued in favour of the petitioner before he applied for a house under Mansrover scheme and secondly there is not even a whisper as to what will be the status of funds deposited by allottees under other schemes. In the absence of the latter and in view of the fact that the petitioner specifically asked for a refund, we are unable to see any merit in the petition filed before us alleging deficiency. We see that the respondent Board has been throughout fair and has responded well in time to all the requests/ applications of the petitioner. We see no merit in this Revision Petition and is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.