High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : J.C. Verma
Jhabarmal - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Housing Board - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 3175 of 1995
Decided On : 08/01/1997
HOUSING BOARD - ALLOTMENT OF HOUSE - DELAY IN DELIVERY OF POSSESSION - INTEREST CHARGED - NOT JUSTIFIED - HOUSING BOARD CANNOT PENALISE ALLOTTEE FOR NO FAULT OF HIS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was allotted a house by the Rajasthan Housing Board in 1992. However, due to a stay order obtained by a third party, the petitioner was not able to take possession of the house until 1994. The Housing Board charged the petitioner interest for the period during which he was unable to take possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Housing Board was not justified in charging the petitioner interest for the period during which he was unable to take possession of the house. The court found that the petitioner was not at fault for the delay in taking possession and that the Housing Board was responsible for the delay.
Issues: Whether the Housing Board was justified in charging the petitioner interest for the period during which he was unable to take possession of the house.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Housing Board could not penalize the petitioner for a delay in taking possession of the house that was not his fault. The court found that the Housing Board was responsible for the delay and that the petitioner should not be held liable for the interest.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the Housing Board to refund the interest that had been charged to the petitioner.
J.C. Verma, J.-After completing all the formalties of submitting the applications and depositing the registration amount alongwith seed money amount of Rs. 12,500/-and Rs. 50,000/- respectively, the petitioner was allotted House No. 4/139 on 17th of October, 1992, at Jawahar Nagar Scheme, reserved for the employees of the Rajasthan Housing Board against the registration year 1987. Despite the allotment made and completing formalities the petitioner was some-how not delivered the possession whereas other similarly situated persons who were below in the registration list had been handed-over the possession. The petitioner made representations to the respondent Housing Board for the delivery of the possession. The petitioner was informed vide Annexure 2, by the respondents on 4-7-94, to the effect that because of certain stay order having been obtained by one Shri Sultan Singh, from the High Court, it is not possible to handover the possession of the house to the petitioner. The writ petition filed by Sultan Singh being Writ Petition No. 1606/1992, was ultimately dismissed on 14th November, 1994, with the result that the stay order granted by the High Court in the writ petition also stood vacated. The petitioner after coming to know the tact of dismissal of the writ petition had informed the Respondent No. 2 and again prayed for possession of the house allotted to him vide his application Annexure 3, on 19th November, 1994.
2. Ultimately the petitioner was handed-over the possession but the petitioner has been penalised for no fault of his by including the amount of Rs. 1,70,826/-as interest when no possession letter was issued. The period, when the petitioner was pressing for possession and no possession was delivered, or when the Housing Board was incapable to deliver the possession because of the stay order granted by the High Court, has been counted by the respondents for thrusting the interest on the petitioner, the petitioner raised objections on this count vide his applications sent in the months of May, June, 1995, copies of which have been attached Annexures 5 to 7.
3. On the facts mentioned above, the petitioner has come up in the writ petition for a direction to the respondents to revise the amount mentioned in the letter Annexure 4 and not to charge the interest of Rs. 1,70,826/-& Anr. amount of wrong totaling Rs. 3800/-.
4. Notices having been issued to the respondents, a reply has been filed through one Laxmi Chand Yadav, Officer-Incharge. The respondent Housing Board has admitted that the House No. 4/139 was allotted to the petitioner but because of a stay order issued by the High Court on the writ petition of one Sultan Singh, the possession could not be delivered to the petitioner. The possession of other houses were delivered to other allottees because there was no stay order against any allottee. It is further admitted that on vacation of the stay order, the petitioner has been charged with additional amount including the interest concerning to the period when no possession could be given by the Housing Board. The facts as stated in the petition are admitted.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted to the Court that even though no possession was delivered to the petitioner nor the petitioner was asked to take any possession, but still during the period of stay order obtained by one Sultan Singh in Civil Writ Petition No. 1606/ 1992, the Board is not supposed to suffer the loss. The contention of the counsel for the respondents if accepted shall amount to hold that even the petitioner is not at fault, nor any possession is delivered but still the allottee must be punished for no fault of his. This contention cannot be accepted. Had the possession been delivered along with other allottees, the petitioner would have paid the amount as applicable for the year 1992 ? There is no justification whatsoever with the respondent-Housing Board to charge interest or enhanced rate of the cost of the house a
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.