SHADI LAL YADAV vs ESTATE MANAGER, HOUSING BOARD, GURGAON

IN this appeal filed by Shadi Lal Yadav against the Housing Board, Haryana the sole grievance of the appellant is that the flat allotted to him was not a corner flat and for this reason extra cost of 10% as stipulated in Condition No. 7 of the conditions of allotment could not be charged from him. The learned District Forum has gone into the matter in detail and after elaborate appraisal of evidence has come to firm finding that the flat in dispute was in fact a corner flat falling in the definition of preferential flat having provision of opening of windows towards the street. IN this appeal the appellant has reiterated his grievance by advancing the same contention. The main thrust of his argument is, that corner flat is that flat which is on the ground floor and a flat on the upper storey cannot be said to be a corner flat; hence it cannot be termed as a preferential one because no additional or extra amenity is available on the first floor which is generally available to a corner flat on the ground floor. For advancing his argument further, neither any reference has been made to some provision, principle or precedent nor any cogent or convincing argument has been advanced in support of the assertion. On the other hand, it is evident on the record, as rightly noticed by the learned District Forum also, that a flat on the upper storey of the corner ground floor flat is also to be treated as a corner or preferential flat as amenity of opening windows towards street and the vacant ground are always permissible. Otherwise also, if a flat at the ground floor is a corner or preferential flat, being situated at the end of the lane, structure raised thereupon on the first or second floor shall also retain the same character. It is a matter of common knowledge that a flat on the upper storey at the end of the lane will always have the amenities of a projection, opening of windows towards the street, overseeing the movements of visitors and hawkers in the street in addition to the advantage of more light and air coming from the side of the street. It is for all these reasons that 10% extra cost is provided under Condition No. 7 of the conditions of allotment. Consequently we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed without costs.