Rajasthan Housing Board vs PRAMOD SHANKAR PAREEKH

NOTICE in this revision against the order dated 19.4.2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur was issued limited to relief No. 3 as granted by the State Commission by the order dated 19.4.2004. Relief No. 3 reads thus : "Since the complainant was compelled to live in a rented house even (as stated on oath by him) after his having become entitled to the allotment and possession of an MIG (A) category house w.e.f. 1.1.1988, the Board shall pay a sum of Rs. 800 p.m. to the complainant, as compensation for the period from 1.11.1988 (in view of the date of allotment made by the Board in favour of above named allottees) till the date of delivery of possession of the house to be allotted to him."

POSSESSION of house is stated to have been given to the respondent/complainant on 6.4.2006. Short submission advanced by Mr. B.D. Sharma for petitioner/opposite party Housing Board is that only amounts of Rs. 3,000 towards registration fee and Rs. 5,600 towards reservation money were paid by the respondent to the petitioner Board and considering these meagre payments the relief granted by the State Commission deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, contention advanced by Mr. Subhash Chawla for respondent is that respondent has been in occupation of Government accommodation and total amount of Rs. 1,57,661 was deducted from his salary towards licence fee of the allotted house from November 1988 to March 2006 and he is at least entitled to this amount. Respondent has filed details of licence fee charged from him along with reply to the revision petition. It is pointed out that the total amount of rent payable by the Board for the said period would come to Rs. 1,60,000. In its order the State Commission has returned finding that not only the name of respondent, on basis of his priority, was not included in the lotteries held on 11.5.1984, 19.2.1985, 1.1.1988 and 4.1.1989 but also the person who got themselves registered much after him, were considered for allotment of houses and were allotted houses. Order of State Commission further notices that respondent was victimised for his having made complaint to Housing Commissioners at Jaipur and Jodhpur and an inquiry into the irregularities was also conducted against the Board officials. Payment of said amounts towards registration fee and reservation money has no relevance in the matter. Payment towards the price of house was to be made only after allotting and handing over of possession of the house by the respondent. In view of said finding and the ratio in G.D.A. v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65, the relief at No. 3 deserves to be maintained with slight modification that respondent will be entitled to Rs. 1,57,661 paid towards licence fee instead of Rs. 1,60,000. Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to cost. Revision Petition disposed of.