A housing authority’s excessive price revision post-possession constitutes unfair trade practice, and obligations must not perpetuate indefinitely based on prior agreements.

ORDER

1.This revision petition challenges the concurrent findings and directions of the fora below. The brief facts are that the respondent-complainant was allotted a flat GK-IV/102A in Cyan Khand Building in the “instant allotment scheme” floated by the petitioner Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) on 15.06.1996 after receiving the registration amount of Rs. 37000/-. As per the “allotment letter and payment schedule” (pg. 42), the "estimated cost” was Rs. 3.96 lacs and the balance amount was to be paid in 8 instalments, the last of Rs.31,037/- to be paid on 15.06.1998. However, the respondent paid the amounts on or before 21.06.1996 after which, as per the complainant, the “tentative” cost got finally crystallised by GDA’s letter dated 25.09.1996 intimating the "final cost” of Rs.4,21,300 and asking for differential payment of Rs.25,300/- plus lease rent of Rs.5,280/- which amounts were also paid on 14/15.10.96, and accordingly, the possession was obtained on 14.10.1996. As per the complainant, despite lapse of considerable time till 2003, the petitioner did not execute the conveyance but on the other hand sent a further illegal and belated demand notice on 04.01.2003 for the alleged differential consideration amount of Rs. 1,18,843/- to be paid before 31.01.2003, failing which, interest at 21% was payable. Aggrieved by such illegal demand, CC/236/2003 was filed before the District Forum, Ghaziabad, wherein, allowing the complaint and quashing the demand notice dated 04.01.2003, the Forum passed the following order:

"In this case, according to the letter of Annexure 01 submitted by the complainant, the above mentioned building number Gyan Khand IV102A was allotted to the complainant on 15-6-1996 by the Opposite Party. Whose final price was fixed at Rs 4,21,300 as per the letter dated 25/9/1996 from Annex 02 to the Opposite Party, this price was the final price and not the estimated value.

The above amount was given to the Opposite Party by the complainant in the form 6C/10, to 6C/14 i.e. Annexure 10 to 14, after paying by the complainant to the Opposite Party GDA. Possession of allotted building handed over on 30-10-1996 as per Annexure 03 Form 6C/03 and while increasing the price of the said building to the complainant on 4-1-03 after more than 6 years after handing over the possession to the complainant on dated 30-10-96, and by increasing the value of price to Rs. 5,93,843 instead of the actual value of the building Rs.4,21000/- and the amount of difference of building price of Rs. 1,18843 was demanded. In the light of the principle propounded in the above mentioned cases, the demand for a different amount, which is being raised after 6 years of giving possession of the building, is unreasonable.

It is true that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to consider the justification of the price, but at the same time, the legal position is clear that action cannot be taken in relation to the building constructed for price escalation after a long period of several years ie 5-6 years after giving possession, due to which the price escalation action by the Opposite Party is unfair. In this regard, the legal precedent of the Hon'ble National Commission 1(1995) CP J Page 17 (NC) Housing Board Haryana vs. Kartar Singh etc. presented by the Opposite Party, does not benefit the Opposite Party in our humble opinion on the grounds mentioned earlier in this matter.

Therefore, on the basis of the entire appreciation mentioned above, after receiving the price of the said building allotted to the complainant fr