Rajasthan Housing Board vs MUKESH KUMAR MATHUR

HEARD.

THE respondent-complainant had applied to the appellant for allotment of a residential house to him under Hire Purchase Scheme. A house was allotted to him under the said scheme on 20.12.1994. He was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 32,782/- by 31.1.1995 and the balance amount of Rs. 42,000/- in 156 monthly instalments. However, the respondent-complainant subsequently applied to the appellant Housing Board on 24.1.1995 to sell the house to him on outright sale basis. THE appellant accepted his prayer and sold the house to him on that basis on 19.4.1995. THE appellant required him to deposit the sale consideration of the house and the respondent paid such consideration by 20.5.1995. THEreafter he was put in possession of the sold house on 3.6.1995. However, during the process of sale of the house by the appellant to the respondent they charged an amount of Rs. 4,142/- on account of interest due to the appellant in respect of late payment of the sale consideration. THE Forum has turned down such claim of the appellant and directed them to refund the amount of Rs. 4,142/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 3.6.1995 and also to pay a sum of Rs. 250/- to him by way of compensation and cost of litigation. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since the parties had originally agreed to purchase and sell the house in question under hire purchase scheme but subsequently on the request of the respondent sale of the house on outright sale basis was made to him, the appellant Board was justified in charging interest on the unpaid amount under hire purchase system. It was submitted that charge of interest was integral part of the cost of the house and such question cannot be gone into by the redressal agencies within their limited jurisdiction. We are unable to agree with the the learned Counsel in this behalf.

Undisputedly the appellant had agreed to sell the house to the respondent on outright sale basis on 19.4.1995. Prior to that the respondent had already made part payment of the sale consideration to the appellant, without obtaining anything in return from them. It is also not in dispute that the respondent was put in possession of the house sold only on 3.6.1995. It is the settled view of law that purchaser of a house is required to pay the instalment under the hire purchase system after he has been put in possession. For, a person desirous of purchasing a house cannot be asked to suffer twice. At one time he is required to pay instalments for the purchase of the goods, without getting any benefit in return. At the same time he is compelled to live in a rented house only in the hope of getting the house from the Housing Board at a future point of time. That would be quite illogical and such approach would go to the disadvantage of the consumer. We fail to put such interpretation either on the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder.

IN the present case admittedly the appellant had agreed to the request of the respondent to sell the house to him on 19.4.1995. It is not in dispute that on 20.5.1995 the respondent had made the payment of entire sale consideration to the appellant and this payment was made within the time allowed to him. Even after making the payment of entire sale consideration, he was put in possession on 3.6.1995. Under such circumstances the act of charging interest by the appellant from the respondent in respect of unpaid instalments under the hire purchase system cannot be approved. The Forum has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant. IN the result, we find no force in this appeal and dismiss it accordingly. Appeal dismissed.