Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Honble Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President;
Mr. I.D. Bali & Mrs. Krishana Tandon, Members
SANT RAM SHARMA & ORS.—Complainants
versus
SHIMLA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.—Opposite Parties
Original Complaint Nos. 51, 52, 57, 60 of 1993 and 49/92 and 8 of 1994—Decided on 22.5.1997
For the Complainant:Mr. Lalit Sharma, Mr. Bimal Gupta & Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Harish Behl, Mr. S.M. Chauhan, Mr. B.N. Shandil & Mr. G.C. Gupta, Advocates.
After taking possession of a property and entering into an agreement, a complainant cannot claim unnecessary delay in construction and development.
Headnote:
Delay in Construction - Real Estate Dispute - The complainant, after taking over possession of the plot and entering into a Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement, cannot claim unnecessary delay in construction and development of the plot. The court relied on the principle established in Premji Bhai Parmar and Others v. Delhi Development Authority & Others, AIR 1980 SC 738, and dismissed the complaints.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant applied for a plot under a self-financing scheme, took possession of the plot, and entered into a Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement. Subsequently, the complainant filed a complaint alleging unnecessary delay in construction and development of the plot.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant, having taken possession of the plot and entered into a Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement, cannot claim unnecessary delay in construction. The court also rejected the argument that the complainant was forced to enter into the agreement.
Issues: The fundamental question was whether the complainant, after taking over possession and entering into the agreement, can claim unnecessary delay in construction and development of the plot.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle established in Premji Bhai Parmar and Others v. Delhi Development Authority & Others, AIR 1980 SC 738, which held that after taking possession, complainants cannot claim unreasonable delay in construction.
Final Decision: The complaints were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President—All these complaints can be disposed of by a common order as these appeals involve similar facts and raise common fundamental questions of law.
2. It would be convenient to refer to the facts of Original Complaint No. 51 of 1993.
3. The relevant facts necessary to be mentioned for determining the point in controversy are that the complainant in pursuance of the Scheme floated by the Opposite Party in the year 1986 under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme for Government employees, applied for Type 'B' plot. The plot, according to the complainant, was required to be delivered before December, 1987. It appears that the delivery of the possession of the plot was delayed by the Opposite Party and that the possession was delivered on 29.12.1992 (Annexure R XI) and the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement was executed with the Opposite Party on 14.12.1992 (Annexure R XII). The complain ant filed the present complaint on 21.9.1993, admittedly, after taking over the possession of the plot and entering into the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement.
4. The fundamental question raised by the Opposite Party which requires our consideration is whether the complainant, after taking over the possession of the plot/house and entering into Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement, can be heard to say that there has been unnecessary delay in the construction of the house and development of plot.
5. This precise question has been considered by the National Commission in Sarthak Behuria and Another v. The Orissa State Hous ing Board, III (1993) CPJ 384 (NC)=1994 (1) CON.LT 438, whereby the National Commission by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Premji Bhai Parmar and Others v. Delhi Devel opment Authority & Others, AIR 1980 SC 738, has observed in para 12 of the judgment as follows:
"Moreover after taking possession of the houses the complainants cannot be heard to say that there has been unreasonable delay in the construction of houses. In this context, reference to Premji Bhai Parmar and Others v. Delhi Development Authority and Others, AIR 1980 SC 738 will be useful. The Court remarked:
“They were advised by the brochures to look at the flats before going in for the same. They were lucky enough to get allotment when the lots were drawn. Each one of them was allotted a flat and he paid the price voluntarily. They are now trying to wriggle out by an invidious method so as to get back a part of the purchase price not offering to return the benefit under the contract, namely, surrender of flat. The Authority in its affidavit in reply in terms stated that it is willing to take back the flats and to repay them the full price. The trans action is complete, viz., possession of the flat is taken and price is paid. At a later stage when they are secure in possession with title, petitioners are trying to get back a part of the purchase price and thus trying to re open and wriggle out of a concluded contract only partially'."
6. In the present cases as is apparent from the facts stated above, the complaints have been filed much after taking over the possession of the plot/house and entering in to Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement. In view of the decision of the National Commission which we respectfully follow and in our opinion squarely covers the present case, the complainant is not entitled to any relief(s) and the complaint has necessarily to be dismissed.
7. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Counsel for the complainant, however, has brought to our notice a letter dated 22.12.1992 (Annexure A 9/1) and also another letter dated 8.12.1992 (Annexure A 8) from which he wants to demonstrate that he has accepted the possession under protest or subject to his rights. We do not find any material in such letters which can possibly suggest such an inference that these letters show any protest for taking over the possession. It may be noticed that the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement was entered into later and at the relevant time, no protest in a
