Rajasthan Housing Board,Through Dy. Housing Commissioner vs Lal Chand Jain S/O Shri Raju Lal Jain

PETITIONER Housing Board which was the Opposite Party before the District Forum, has filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 11.04.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short, ''the State Commission'') in appeal no. 1931/04 whereby the appeal filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed and the order of the District Forum upheld. District Forum had directed the Petitioner to make available a house to the Complainant of his preference and category and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental torture and Rs.500/- as costs within a period of sixty days. Petitioner was also directed to take back the Registration amount refunded to the Complainant/Respondent.

FACTS:- Complainant/Respondent (since deceased represented by LRs) applied for allotment of a house in MIG (A) Kalptaru Scheme floated by the Petitioner Board in the year 1991. He deposited Rs.2,000/- as registration fee on 17.07.91. He was issued a preference letter No. KOT/MI/91/0930050. As per averments made in the complaint, since the Respondent did not receive any response from the Petitioner till 1997, he wrote a letter dated 21.01.97 to the Petitioner requesting it to allot a house to him. Allegedly, the Estate Officer of the Petitioner by his letter No. 7531 dated 24.02.97 informed the Respondent that at present the houses were being allotted to the persons who got their registration done in the year 1982 and since the Respondent had got the registration done in the year 1991 he had to wait for another three years for allotment of a house. On 25.05.01, Respondent again wrote a letter to the Petitioner to either allot a house or he will knock the doors of the competent Court. It was alleged that being unhappy by his letter dated 25.5.01, Petitioner cancelled the registration of the Respondent on the ground that he had not deposited the entire registration fee and refunded the registration fee of Rs.1,900/- through cheque No.1164299. Being aggrieved by the cancellation of the registration, Respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the Petitioner to allot a house to him of his preference and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

PETITIONER, on being served, put in appearance and filed its written statement contesting the complaint, inter-alia, on the ground that on 19.05.92, Petitioner had written a letter to the Respondent to comply with the necessary requirements and to deposit the entire amount of registration fee along with interest @ 18% p.a. In response to which, Respondent wrote a letter on 2.7.92 informing the Petitioner that he will complete the formalities but did not mention anything about the deposit of the balance amount. That on 21.1.97, Respondent requested the Petitioner to refund the registration fee. Since the entire registration fee was not deposited despite letters dated 19.05.02 and 2.8.01, Petitioner cancelled the registration of the Respondent and refunded the registration fee deposited by him. District Forum allowed the complaint. It was held that since the registration was cancelled without issuing notice to the Respondent, the same was bad in law. It was also held that Petitioner did not inform the Respondent about the cancellation. Petitioner was directed to make available a house to the Respondent of his preference and category and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental torture and Rs.500/- as costs within a period of sixty days. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that despite the letters dated 19.05.92 and 2.08.01, Respondent failed to deposit the entire registration fee and as such the Petitioner Housing Board was within its right to cancel his registration. He further contends that Rule 10 of the Disposal of Property Regulations 1970 provides that the Board has full power to cancel the registration either in case of failure to comply with the provisions or in case of seeking return or withdrawal of registration fee. That since in the present case, Respondent had sought the withdrawal of registration fee vide letter dated 21.1.97, the Petitioner rightly cancelled the registration of the Complainant and refunded the registration fee to him. As against this, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent supports the orders passed by fora below.

COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length. From the facts on record, we find that the Respondent except the deposit of Rs.2,000/- on 17.7.91, did not pay any other amount either towards the registration fee or the consideration amount. Despite Petitioner''s letters dated 19.05.92 and 2.08.01requiring the Respondent to deposit the entire registration fee, the Respondent failed to do so. Under Rule 10 of the Disposal of Property Regulations 1979, the Board has power to cancel the registration either in case of failure to comply with the provisions or in case of seeking return or withdrawal of the registration fee. Since the Respondent failed to pay the balance registration fee, Petitioner in terms of Rule 10 was justified in cancelling the registration of the Respondent. This apart, Respondent vide his letter dated 21.1.97 sought the withdrawal of the registration fee. In terms of the request made by the Respondent, Petitioner refunded the registration fee and cancelled the registration. Respondent having sought refund of the registration fee cannot turn around and ask for allotment of the house. The fora below have non-suited the Petitioner on the ground that notice before cancellation of registration was not issued to the Respondent. This finding cannot be sustained for the simple reason that no notice was required to be issued to the Respondent before cancellation of registration as the Respondent had himself sought the refund of the registration amount. For the reasons stated above, the Revision Petition is accepted and orders passed by the fora below are set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.