NAGAR SUDHAR NYAS vs Usha

HEARD.

FACTS and question of law being quite indentical and common to all these appeals, these were heard together and are now disposed of by this consolidated order. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that in order to obtain residential houses from the appellant trust, which is admittedly engaged in construction activities, the respondent-complainants applied in the month of January, 1996 and deposited the registration amount of Rs. 15,000/- each. In the lottery, held by the appellant on 13.1.1997, the respondents came out to be the successful applicants. They were required by the appellant to deposit a further amount of Rs. 15,000/- each, which they duly deposited in the month of February, 1997. The case of the respondent-complainants was that thereafter they had repeatedly requested the appellant to deliver possession of the allotted house to them but the appellant did not listen to them.

The stand of the appellant Trust was that since the respondents did not pay the oustanding monthly instalments of Rs. 572/- each with interest and penalty from the date of allotment of the house to them, they were not put in possession of the houses. The grievance of the respondent-complainants, however, was the neither the locality had been developed nor the allotted houses were completely constructed and no fitting and fixtures were carried therein, they were not fit for habitation. In any case, the delivery of possession of the house was given to them only in the month of January, 1999. But since necessary developmental activities were not taken by the appellant and necessary fittings were also not made in the houses allotted to the respondent-complainants, they approached the Forum for necessary reliefs.

THE case put up by the appellant before the Forum was that the respondent should first pay the interest due and penalty imposed on the unpaid instalments of the consideration of the house. After having appreciated the case of the parties, the Forum held that the appellant had rendered deficient services to the respondent-complainants. However, the Forum further found that the respondent-complainants had not paid the instalments due after the delivery of possession of the houses to them. THE Forum, therefore, directed that the respondent-complainants shall pay the arrears of the instalments due from 1.1.1999 with interest at the rate of 14 per cent per annum and on their failing to deposit such amount within a period of three months from the date of the order, they would be liable to be evicted from the houses. At the same time the Forum required the appellant Trust to develop the locality and particularly provide the necessary facilities regarding approaches to each of the houses and also to remove other deficiencies and provide other facilities in order no make the house fit for comfortable habitation. Aggrieved by such order of the Forum, the appellant Trust has filed all these appeals. It is evident that it was as back as in the month of February, 1997 that the respondent-complainants had deposited a total sum of Rs. 30,000/- each with the appellant Trust. After the deposit of the aforesaid amount, the appellant Trust was expected to have delivered the possession of the houses, allotted to the respondents, within reasonable time. But the appellant Trust took about two years to deliver the possession of the house to the allottees and that too without developing the locality and providing the approach roads to them and necessary fittings in the houses. The appellant Trust had thus rendered deficient services to the respondents in the matter of putting the respondents in possession of the allotted house.

IT is the fundamental principle of natural justice that payment of instalments should commence after the date the allottee has been put in possession of the house. For, it is a matter of common experience that a number of applicants have to reside in rented houses. IT would be negation of the housing policy of the State, if an applicant is required to stay in the rented house and at the same time to pay monthly instalment in respect to the house which has although been allotted to him but of which he was not given the possession. The appellant could, therefore, not have levied any interest on the so-called unpaid instalments and accordingly to have imposed any penalty in respect thereto. The Forum has very rightly directed that the respondent-complainants were liable to pay interest on the unpaid instalments w.e.f. 1.1.1999 only. In view of the above, we find no force in these appeals and dismiss them with costs on parties throughtout. Appeals dismissed.