NAGAR PALIK NIGAM, BHILAI vs NIRMALA KUMARI SINGHAL

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 28.9.2001 in Complaint No. 28/1996 directing the appellant Municipal Corporation, Bhilai to refund to complainant/respondent Rs. 10,000 recovered from the complainant as lease rent and also to pay interest @ 9% per annum thereon, besides Rs. 1,000 as cost.

THE relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal stated in brief are that Kedar Nath Singhal, the husband of complainant/respondent Smt. Nirmala Kumari Singhal initially applied for allotment of a plot under the scheme floated by Special Area Development Authority, Bhilai-Durg (hereinafter ''SADA'' for short). THE plot was allotted to him as per term and condition mentioned in the letter dated 18.12.1989 of SADA. It is also not in dispute that, the total price of the plot was Rs. 50,000. Rs. 5,000 being 10% of that amount was initially deposited by Kedar Nath Singhal. Subsequently Rs. 17,000 were deposited by him on 16.3.1988. THE balance of Rs. 28,000 was to be deposited within 21 days thereafter as per the agreement between the parties, from the date of confirmation of auction in favour of Kedar Nath Singhal. It is also not in dispute that the SADA had given an option to the allottee that in case he wishes to get the lease deed registered in favour of some of his family members i.e., spouse and minor children, he could make a request, in that regard. It is also not in dispute that the allottee Kedar Nath Singhal applied to the SADA to register the plot in favour of his wife-the present complainant/respondent Smt. Nirmala Kumari Singhal. THE balance amount of Rs. 28,000 was indisputably deposited by Kedar Nath Singhal on 27.12.1989. Thus, the payment of the price of plot was fully made, on the said date. It appears that the complainant raised certain objection regarding the requirements for getting the plot registered in the name of his wife. However, ultimately the lease deed of the plot was registered in favour of his wife-the complainant on 5.4.1995 and possession thereof was given to her on 24.4.1995. Indisputably lease rent of the said plot amounting to Rs. 12,500 from 1991-92 to 1994-95 amounting to Rs. 12,500 was demanded by the SADA.

The grievance of complainant/respondent was that since physical possession of the plot was handed over to her on 24.4.1995, therefore, lease rent could not be demanded relating to the years 1990-91 to 1994-95. According to the complainant, lease rent of four years amounting to Rs. 10,000 has been recovered from her, by the appellant, illegally. The complainant prayed that the said amount be directed to be refunded with interest and cost.

IT may be mentioned that the SADA has been now succeeded by Municipal Corporation, Bhilai and all the rights and liabilities of SADA have indisputably devolved on the appellant. The complaint was resisted on behalf of SADA. It was averred that the complainant herself was responsible for not getting the lease deed executed and registered. It was averred that, in fact she was under an obligation, as per terms of agreement to deposit the balance premium amounting to Rs. 28,000 within 21 days by 17.5.1988. Instead of doing so, the amount as above, was deposited by the allottee-Kedar Nath Singhal on 27.2.1989. Thereafter, also he did not take necessary steps for registration of sale deed and submitted an application dated 19.7.1990 for registration of the same in favour of his wife-the complainant Nirmala Kumari Singhal. Though the prayer was accepted by SADA, yet the complainant or his wife did not take appropriate step for registration of sale deed. It was further averred that since the complainant himself was at fault in not complying with the terms and conditions of this agreement, he was not entitled to get any refund of lease rent or compensation, from the appellant.

THE District Forum in the impugned order held that since possession of the plot, was handed over to the complainant after the complainant deposited Rs. 12,500 on 15.5.1994, hence the recovery for lease rent prior to the date was not justified. Accordingly, the complaint was accepted and Rs. 10,000 recovered as lease rent for period preceding the delivery of possession was directed to be refunded with interest, etc., as has been mentioned earlier. The learned Counsel for the appellant has filed application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC by which he has sought to file documents including the note sheet and proceedings regarding allotment and possession, etc. of the plot to the original allottee Kedar Nath Singhal and his wife-complainant. Since the documents are necessary for final adjudication of the dispute between the parties, the application is allowed and documents will be taken into consideration. In view of controversy as above, the main question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the complainant is liable to pay lease rent after the possession of the plot was handed over to her; or from the year 1991 as demanded by the appellant?

AS already mentioned, the plot was finally allotted in favour of complainant''s husband in 1988 and he was required to deposit the balance amount by 25.4.1988, as would appear from the appellant''s letter dated 19.9.1989 marked as Annexure R-3. He, however, instead of depositing the amount, delayed the matter by raising queries. Ultimately the complainant''s husband filed an application that the lease deed be executed and registered, in favour of his wife-the complainant. The complainant was thereafter asked by SADA (which had floated the scheme) to comply with certain formalities required to be complied with, regarding change of the allottee''s name, etc. However, it appears from the correspondence placed on record of this appeal, that the complainant''s husband Kedar Nath Singhal continued to raise objections in the above regard, and desired that necessary provisions regarding the above requirement may be disclosed to him. He, however, ultimately deposited the balance amount on 27.12.1989 and also to have complied with the formalities. The sale deed was thereafter registered in the complainant''s name on 5.4.1995 as per the request of her husband, Kedar Nath Singhal, the original allottee.

IT would appear from the above circumstances, that had the complainant or her husband complied with the terms of the agreement, and the requests of SADA to furnish documents and particulars regarding change of name, the plot would have been registered in favour of either the husband of the complainant-the original allottee, or his wife-the complainant, as far back as in the year 1988. Instead of doing so, the complainant''s husband continued to delay the matter and filed the application for registration of plot in favour of his wife, in the year 1990. Even after his request was acceded to by SADA, he did not perform the necessary formalities. IT may be seen that if the formalities were complied with in proper time, as requested by SADA, the plot would have been registered in favour of the complainant immediately in the year 1990. Even in that case, the complainant or her husband would have been required to pay lease rent from the date of registration i.e., even prior to 1991, since when the lease rent has been demanded by SADA/Municipal Corporation-the appellant. In the circumstances the complainant or her husband themselves appear to be responsible for the delay in execution of the lease deed. Hence, the complainant cannot complain of demand of lease rent from 1991, prior to which the whole of premium amount was deposited by the complainant/her husband-the original allottee, and was thus entitled to get possession of the plot. In the foregoing circumstances, it appears that there is deficiency in service by the appellant/SADA in demanding lease rent from 1991 and recovering the same from the complainant. The findings recorded by the District Forum to that effect do not deserve to be upheld.

Accordingly this appeal is allowed, the impugned order directing opposite party/appellant to refund Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand) with interest, etc. is set aside. The complaint stands dismissed. Appeal allowed.