D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS letters patent appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20-8-1994, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant being M. P. No. 445 of 1993, has been dismissed.

( 2 ) THE facts, not in dispute, are that MIG House No. 185 in Pandit Dindayal Nagar Colony of Gwalior was allotted to the appellant under the Housing Hire-Purchase Scheme of the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board. The agreed price payable by instalments was Rs. 1,58,000/- which the appellant is prepared to pay and states that, in fact, has been paid by now. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned demand (Annexure-P/9) whereby some excess money, not initially agreed, is being demanded, resulting in enhancement of the cost of the house to Rs. 1,93,653/ -. The contention of the appellant before the learned single Judge in the writ petition was that the additional price claimed under several heads is contrary to the terms of the agreement reached between the parties and is also otherwise totally arbitrary and without any justification. The appellant had claimed a writ for being delivered possession of the house on payment of the initially agreed price.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge dismissed the petition firstly on the ground that under the terms of the said sale agreement under the Housing Scheme, the prices notified and agreed were liable to enhancement and the enhancement was within the powers of the Board. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1076. The learned single Judge also dismissed the petition on the second ground that the rights between the Board and the appellant are regulated by a contract and the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 cannot be brought in aid by the appellant.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel Shri H. N. Upadhyaya, in this appeal, contends that the learned single Judge did not properly construe the terms of the agreement for holding that the enhancement in the price of house was within the competence of the Board. Second contention advanced is that as the impugned demand notice (Annexure-P/9) from its various heads would disclose that enhanced price was also claimed for the land and for so-called better location which was completely without any justification under the terms of contract or in law. The attention of the Court is invited to the various heads contained in the demand notice (Annexure-P/9) resulting in enhancement of price from Rs. 1,58,000/- to Rs. 1,96,653/ -. The various heads are as under :- 1. Premium price of the Plot. . Rs. 33,750. 002 Initial amount 20% or 30% for the house. . Rs. 1,58,140. 003 Corner charges 10%. .-----4 Other charges. . Rs. 1,075. 005 Better location. . Rs. 1,688. 006 Total price. . Rs. 1,93,653. 00minus 7 Amount deposited. . Rs. 78,000. 00amount payable. . Rs. 1,15,653. 00

( 5 ) IN the return submitted in the petition, a bald statement has been made that the price initially fixed was approximate and the price had to be increased due to the increase in the value of raw materials, labour charges and supervision costs. Reliance for the exercise of that power of increase in price is placed on the decision in Bareilly Development Authority's case (supra ). The specific averment made in para 6 of the return is as under :-"the price and charges has been included on the actual basis and as per the rules and prevailing practice with the respondent. The demand of the amount of Rs. 1,58,000/- was neither unjust nor unreasonable. "

( 6 ) IN reply to the return, the appellant had filed a rejoinder in the writ petition and has specifically taken a plea that as per the various leads mentioned in the demand notice, a sum of Rs. 33,750/- is charged towards extra price of the plot and Rs. 1,075/- and Rs. 1,688/ - have been demanded for better location or miscellaneous charges which cannot be demanded and are wholly unjustified. The Housing Board, neither in the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document