IMPORTANT POINT
No party can take advantage of its own wrong, fault or lapse.

Ashok Bhan, President—Rajasthan Housing Board-petitioner herein, who was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bikaner, Rajasthan (herein referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) has filed the present revision petition.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:

3. Complainant Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava respondent herein applied for allotment of residential house of H.I.G. Category with the petitioner under the “General Registration .Scheme.” Petitioner, by its letter dated 30.4.1993, informed the respondent that he has been allotted House No.9/35 in their Mukta Prasad Nagar Colony at Bikaner under “Hire Purchase Scheme” and required him to deposit Rs.18,968 on or before 14.6.1993 in addition what had already been deposited by him. He was also directed to pay monthly installments of Rs.3,742 each and submit certain documents. Respondent/complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.18,968 on 28.5.1993 and 14 monthly installments regularly. According to him, he had completed all the formalities. Respondent, in all, paid Rs.1,89,986 but the possession of the house in question was not delivered to him on the plea that he had not executed the “Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement” in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board.

4. Being aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum stating therein that he did not submit the “Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement” because in the letter dated 30.4.1993, the petitioner Housing Board had not indicated that he was required to execute the “Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement” and the said condition was not applicable to his case.

5. Petitioners entered appearance and filed their written statement. In the written statement, petitioners did not dispute the main features of the complainant’s case. They opposed the complaint on the sole ground that the possession of the house in question could not be given to the respondent as the petitioner failed to execute “Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement” in favour of the petitioner Housing Board. Execution of the “Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement” was a condition precedent for delivery of possession as per Rules and Regulations framed by the Housing Board and the undertaking given by the respondent. District Forum did not find any merit in the above plea raised by the petitioners and allowed the complaint. It, accordingly, directed the petitioner to deliver the actual physical possession of the allotted house to the respondent and pay a sum of Rs.10,000 by way of compensation for mental agony and non-enjoyment of the possession of the allotted house plus Rs.500 as cost of litigation.

6. Being aggrieved, petitioners as well as the respondent/complainant filed appeals before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission for short’). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent primarily on the ground that in the allotment letter dated 30.4.1993, the petitioner had not specified that the respondent is required to execute “Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement”. The letter simply stated that “complainant/allottee was required to submit the documents”. There was no mention of the “Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement”. It was further held that even the format of such “Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement” had not been produced by the petitioner. Accordingly, the State Commission directed the petitioner to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount of Rs.81,468 (for registration—Rs.12,500, for seed money—Rs.50,000, Rs. 18,968 demanded with the letter of allotment) from 15.06.1993 and on amount of the installments from the dates of their deposits with the Rajasthan Housing Board till the date of delivery of possession of the allotted house to the complainant with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000.

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, petitioners