Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
LALIT RAM
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1997
BENCH:
MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, K.T. THOMAS
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Thomas j.
This appeal by special leave is in challenge of an
order of the High Court of Patna dated 8.5.1995 by which a
Division Bench has refused to modify an earlier order dated
2.2.1993. Appellants herein are the Bihar State Housing
Board, its Managing Director and its Executive Engineer at
Harun-Ranchi.
Bihar State Housing Board (For short ’the Housing
Board’) put up flats under a housing scheme. As per the
allotment order dated 9.12.1983, a flat bearing No.H-1/200
was allotted to the respondent at a tentative cost of
Rs.85,400/- The respondent was to pay a sum of Rs.17,230/-
as the initial payment. As the respondent had paid an
advance of Rs.6,500/- he was permitted to deduct it from the
initial payment and thus he was to pay Rs.10,730/- in a lump
within thirty days from the date of allotment order. But
respondent paid that amount only in 1987 presumably with
interest (as he paid an amount of Rs.17,541/-) As per clause
6 of the allotment order the allotment was to pay the
balance amount of Rs.68,320/- in monthly instalments
alongwith interest. The case of the respondent is that he
could not execute the agreement as was required in the
allotment order as the flat remained incomplete. He informed
the Housing Board that he had to take another house on rent
on account of it. Respondent then filed a writ petition
before the High Court for appropriate reliefs.
By order dated 2.2.1993, a Division Bench of the High
Court directed that if the respondent would deposit the
balance amount of Rs.68,320/- as mentioned in clause 6 of
the allotment order, the Housing Board shall deliver vacant
possession of the flat to him with all the fittings and
fixtures required to be done "within one month from the date
of last deposit of the amount". The Board was further
directed to indicate the date when respondent was to execute
the date when respondent deposits that last instalments.
On 15.2.1993, the Executive Engineer of the Housing
Board required the respondent to get the agreement executed
after depositing the amount of Rs.68,320/- within two months
and to take physical possession of the flat. It is now
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
admitted that respondent had paid the said amount. But the
Housing Board thereafter moved the High Court for
modification of the order dated 2.2.1993 on three different
occasions, and the High Court has declined to modify the
order on all those three occasions.
The main thrust of argument of Sri Ranjit Kumar,
learned counsel for the Housing Board is that the amount of
Rs.85,400 was fixed in the allotment order only tentatively
and the allotment is liable to pay the revised rate when the
Housing Board estimates the final amount. That is altogether
a different aspect since the claim of the Board now is that
respondent is liable to pay interest on the amount of
Rs.68,320/- since respondent has failed to pay the monthly
instalment of Rs.980/- form the date of allotment.
At the first blush, it appeared that there is merit in
the aforesaid claim of the Housing Board. But on a closer
look we noticed the other side of the picture. Respondent
further alleges that the flat in the present incomplete form
is being used by the Housing Board for storing cement stock
with them. If is a fact which is not disputed before us that
the flat remains incomplete. Appellants blames the
respondent for it as no agreement was executed but liability
to execute the agreement cannot be insisted on without
completing the construction of the flat.
In the above situation, we do not think that this is a
fit case for interference with the order of the High Court.
While dismissing this appeal we grant two months’ time from
to the Housing Board to comply with the directions issued by
the High Court in the order dated 2.2.1993.