Back
2013 Supreme(MP) 1103
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Sanjay Yadav, J.
Bhagwati - Appellant
Versus
M.P. Housing Board and Another - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1160-2008
Decided On : 13-08-2013
For the Appellant :Shri Ravish Agrawal, Senior Advocate and Shri K.S. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents:Shri V.S. Shroti, Senior Advocate, Shri Vikram Johri, Advocate
For the Intervener:Shri Ashok Banke, Advocate
The plaintiff's failure to seek consequential relief and establish an accrued right over the property led to the suit being barred by proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Headnote:
Hike/Revision of Rates - Property Dispute - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - [Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963] - The court discussed the unreasonable and arbitrary hike/revision of rates of the disputed space and the authority of the defendants to revise the rates. The court also addressed the finding that the suit was barred by proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff booked a space under a self-financing payment schedule, but the defendants revised the rates of the booked property, leading to a dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the rates advertised were estimated, the registration was automatically cancelled, and the suit was barred by proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the rate revision, the cancellation of registration, and the applicability of proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish an accrued right over the property and did not seek consequential relief, leading to the suit being barred by proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree passed by the trial court, affirmed by the first appellate court, did not warrant any interference, and the appeal was dismissed.
Sanjay Yadav, J.:-
1. This second appeal at the instance of plaintiff was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether the courts below committed an error of law in not addressing itself to the controversy with regard to unreasonable and arbitrary hike/revision of rates of the disputed space and misdirected it in deciding the issue as to whether the defendants had authority in law to revise the rates of the disputed space?
(ii) Whether the finding recorded by the lower appellate court that the defendants have explained as to under what circumstances the cost of booked space has been enhanced, is perverse?
(iii) Whether the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff is barred by proviso to section34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?
(iv) Whether the lower appellate Court committed an error of law in rejecting the applications under order 41 rule 27 and under order 6 rule 17 C.P.C. preferred by the appellant/plaintiff?
Parties shall be referred to as they stood before the trial court.
2. Facts giving rise to the Appeal, are that in response to the advertisement published and brochure issued by the defendants, plaintiff booked a space; show-room and departmental store under self financing payment schedule, to be constructed near T.T. Nagar Stadium New Market. Case of the plaintiff before trial court was that the price of proposed construction was fixed at Rs. 32 lacs of which Rs. 3.20 lacs were deposited on 10.2.2000 and the remaining amount was to be deposited in three equal installments of Rs. 7.20 lacs within twelve months. The plaintiff was allotted registration number under the scheme. On 2.9.2000 the plaintiff was informed that the installment schedule has been postponed and the revised scheduled shall be communicated separately. That, on 27.9.2001 the plaintiff was informed that her registration is temporary and the rate of the booked property has been revised @ 2000/- per sq. foot. On 9.10.2001 the plaintiff was informed that the area is 2292 sq. ft. of floor and 605 sq. ft. of mezzanine floor total area being 2897 sq. ft. That by communication dated 27.11.2001 the plaintiff was informed that the rates of booked property have been revised to Rs. 57,94,000/- @ Rs. 2000/- per sq. ft. Being aggrieved plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to the effect that the letter/communication dt. 27.11.2001 is illegal and is not binding on the plaintiff and that, the plaintiff is entitled to allotment of the space booked by her at the original cost and is also entitled for adjustment of interest on the amount deposited by her. The plaintiff also sought relief of injunction to the effect that the defendant be restrained from cancelling the registration of the plaintiff under the scheme.
3. The defendants disputed the claim of the plaintiff contending that in the advertisement estimated and not the final cost of space booked was stated. That, the plaintiff was informed about the revised rates on the basis of the estimated cost and actual cost incurred by the defendants. It was further contended that the plaintiff was given the option that in case she is not willing to accept the revised rates she can withdraw the amount deposited by her with interest @ 8% per annum. It was also contended that initially the cost of construction was estimated at Rs. 350/- per sq. ft. Subsequently taking into account the cost of development work, cost of construction, lease rent payable to the government and other expenses the rates were revised to Rs. 2000/- per sq. ft. and communication to said effect was entered into. It was further contended that the plaintiff since did not accept the revised rates, therefore, her registration got automatically cancelled on 10.10.2001.
4. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 31.8.2006, dismissed the suit. It held that the rates advertised by the defendants were only the estimated rates and the plaintiff did not book the space in question at a fixed rate of Rs. 32.00 lac
