PHOOLCHAND ARYA vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

HEARD. 1. By its order dated 27.6.1992 made in appellant''s Complaint No. 1132/1990, the Forum, allowing the complaint of the appellant, had directed the respondent to deliver the possession of the house allotted to him within two months and also to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to him as compensation for mental agony. The said basic order has admittedly become final between the parties.

SINCE the respondent did not comply with the aforesaid basic order, the appellant moved an Application No. 111/1992 for enforcement of the basic order. While deciding this application vide order dated 29.3.1994, the Forum directed that the cost of the house from the appellant be charged in the same manner as was charged from other allottees of house of similar category. Such order made by the Forum was challenged by the appellant in Appeal No. 545/1994. This Commission set aside the order of the Forum dated 29.3.1994 and directed the Forum to decide the application of the appellant under Section 27 of the C.P. Act, 1986 (the Act). The said application has now been decided by the Forum vide its order dated 8.8.1996, which is under appeal. By the impugned order the Forum has levied penalty of Rs. 3,000/- upon the respondent. The learned Counsel for the respondent has stated at Bar that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,000/- has already been deposited by the respondent with the Forum.

The grievance expressed by the appellant through this appeal is that the cost of the house should have been charged from him which was prevalent in the year 1987. Such plea cannot be entertained in this appeal which has been directed against an order made by the Forum under Section 27 of the Act. The executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The executing Court has to execute the decree as was made by it on the original side. In this case it is the basic order which is required to be enforced. The Forum, in exercise of its powers under Section 25/27 of the Act cannot go behind the basic order dated 27.6.1992.

AN order disposing of an application under Section 27 of the Act without enforcement of the basic order does not deprive the complainant of getting the basic order enforced. The ultimate purpose of the proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 of the Act is redressal of the grievance of the complainant through the coercive methods mentioned in those sections. Section 27 is simply to force and compel the person against whom the basic order was made, to comply with such order. In this instant case the punishment of the respondent with fine of Rs. 3,000/- does not deprive the appellant of his right to seek enforcement of the basic order dated 27.6.1992. In view of the above this appeal is disposed of with this observation that the appellant would be entitled to move a fresh application under Section 25 and/or 27 of the Act against the respondent for enforcement of the basic order. It may be observed that non-compliance of the basic order constitutes a continuing offence and by the impugned order, such continuing offence does not come to an end. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.