Rajasthan Housing Board vs SOMCHAND

WITH the consent of the parties the appeal was heard finally at this stage.

IT is the undisputed position between the parties that house No. 4-P-9, Talwandi, Kota was allotted by the appellant Housing Board to the respondent on 15.10.1988. The possession of the house was also delivered to the allottee on that very day. The allottee had already deposited/paid a part of consideration of the house to the respondent. The balance amount had agreed to be payable through monthly instalments of 824/-. The case of the respondent before the D.F. was that by its amended allotment-cum-possession letter dated 8.2.1996, marked Exhibit C-10 the appellant Housing Board required him to pay a further amount of Rs. 64,497.35 as interest for the period from October, 1998 to February, 1996. The learned D.F., after examining the validity of the claim of the appellant for aforesaid amount of interest held that the appellant cannot claim that amount in the name of revision of cost of construction. The Forum, therefore, cancelled the aforesaid amount and further required the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent for mental agony. Hence this appeal by the appellant.

It is clear that the possession of the house had been delivered by the appellant to the respondent as back as on 15.10.1988. The contract for sale and purchase of the house stood concluded between the parties and the respondent simply remained under obligation to pay monthly instalments, the fault of payment of which might have attracted other terms and conditions of the main contract. In so far as the question of payment of the cost of the house and/or any amount by way of interest on such amount was concerned that was reflected in the allotment-cum-possession letter. There were no good reason to have revised such allotment-cum-possession letter and simply to raise demand of interest after a lapse of 8 years. In our opinion the D.F. was justified in cancelling the demand for interest so raised.

HOWEVER the amount of compensation awarded is somewhat excessive. By raising a demand only for interest after the lapse of 8 years was certainly an act which could have caused mental agony to the respondent. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case we reduce the amount of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 2,500/-. With this modification in the order the appeal is partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.