A. VENUGOPAL vs. TELANGANA HOUSING BOARD

come up with the above appeal. The appellant herein filed a writ petition contending  inter alia 3. (i)   that   his   grandfather   by   name   A.   Venkaiah   @   Hanumaiah, S/o  Balaiah   was   allotted   a  house   by   the   then   Andhra  Pradesh Housing   Board   on   17.05.1968,   on   rental   basis;     that   his (ii) grandfather died on 16.09.1969, leaving behind him surviving, his father   A.   Shankaraiah;   (iii)   that   his   father   Shankaraiah   gave   a representation on 16.12.1969 seeking transfer of the allotment in his name;   (iv)   that after demanding certain certificates from his father, the Housing Board transferred the allotment in favour of his father by the proceeding dated 14.04.1970;   that at the time when (v) the allotment was transferred, a small discrepancy happened when his father wrote his grandfather’s name;  (vi)  that in October, 1977 the   Housing   Board   offered   the   house   for   outright   sale   or   hire purchase;     that his father opted for hire purchase;     that (vii) (viii) thereafter his father started paying the EMI regularly;   (ix)   that all 2 the instalments payable by his father, were duly and promptly paid and the entire payment schedule was completed by March, 1992;   that   unfortunately   his   father   died   on   20.04.1992;     that (x) (xi) thereafter the appellant applied for the transfer of the house in his name, but a dispute arose between the appellant and his sisters;  that the suit for partition filed by his sisters in O.S. No.4359 of (xii) 2004 was eventually settled before the Lok Adalat on 25.06.2014; (xiii)  that as per the Lok Adalat award, the appellant paid money to his  sisters,   as   the   house   site   was   just   120   sq.   yards   and  was incapable of being divided into six shares;  that in view of the (xiv)  settlement, his sisters gave ‘No Objection’ for the registration of the house in favour of the appellant, on 16.07.2016;  (xv)  that when the appellant applied along with those documents for the transfer of the house in his name, it was rejected by Order dated 3.12.2014, on account   of   the   discrepancies   in   the   name   of   the   appellant’s grandfather;   (xvi)   that   though   the   appellant   signed   an   affidavit before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 6.07.2015 and got it attested, 3 the second respondent again rejected the request of the appellant by subsequent orders dated 18.05.2017 and 31.05.2018; and  (xvii) that, therefore, he was constrained to file the writ petition. 4. The writ petition was contested by the respondents on the ground   inter   alia     that   the   name   mentioned   by   the   original (i) applicant in the application dated 17.05.1968 was M. Venkaiah @ Balaiah;  (ii)  that in the rental agreement executed by him, he had written his initial as “A” in one place and as “M” at another place;   that after the demise of the original allottee, a representation (iii) dated 16.12.1969 was received from A. Shankaraiah, claiming to be the son and only legal heir of the original allottee;   that, however, (iv) the claimant A. Shankaraiah gave his father’s name as A. Yenkaiah; (v)  that the death certificate accompanying the application was that of A. Venkaiah;   that believing his representation to be true, the (vi) Housing Board transferred the tenancy in favour of A. Shankaraiah by proceedings dated 14.04.1970;   (vii)   that the tenancy was later converted into hire purchase and a lease­cum­sale agreement was 4 entered into in October, 1978;   (viii)   that while entering into the rental   agreement,   A.   Shankaraiah   gave   his   father’s   name   as   A. Yenkaiah,   but   while   executing   the   lease­cum­sale   agreement   he gave his father’s name as Venkaiah;   (ix)   that when the appellant applied as the son of A. Shankaraiah for transfer and registration by letter dated 19.06.2013, the Board found out the discrepancies; that though the appellant produced the Lok Adalat award, the (x)   respondents found the claim to be untenable and they decided to take action under Sections 52 and 53 of the Telangana Housing Board Act, 1956 for unauthorized occupation and that, therefore, the writ petition deserved to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings on record and also on admitted facts,   the   learned   Single   Judge   found   that   the   discrepancy regarding the  initial of  the original allottee  and  the discrepancy regarding the way in which the original allottee’s name was written by the appellant’s father appeared consistently from the beginning. The learned Judge further found that from the year of allotment namely,   1968,   the   name   of   the   original   allottee   was   written   in 5 English with different spellings and that after having entered into a hire purchase agreement with the appellant’s father way back in October, 1978 and after having received all the instalments due from him fully and completely, it was not proper on the part of the Housing Board to take advantage of the illiteracy of the father and grandfather of the appellant. The learned Judge also found that there was no other claimant for the house and that admittedly the appellant   had   been   in   occupation   of   the   same   for   decades. Therefore, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition.   But unfortunately the Division Bench reversed the judgment of 6. the learned Single Judge on the ground that the discrepancies in the manner in which the name of the original allottee was written was sufficient justification for the Housing Board to conclude that a fraud   was   being   played   upon   them.   Interestingly,   the   Division Bench went to the extent of holding that even the appellant’s father who passed away in 1992 was guilty of fraud. 7. We do not know how the Division Bench reached the above conclusions. Right from the year 1968, the house has been in the 6 possession and enjoyment of the appellant’s family. Even in the original application made by Venkaiah in the year 1968, there was a discrepancy regarding the initial. After his death in 1969, the Housing Board accepted A. Shankaraiah as his son and entered into   a   tenancy   agreement   on   14.04.1970   and   a   lease­cum­sale agreement on 6.10.1978. Shankaraiah completed all his obligations under the lease­cum­sale agreement and also died in 1992. It is not as though at the time of transferring the tenancy in the year 1970 or   at   the   time   of   entering   into   a   lease­cum­sale   agreement   on 6.10.1978 with Shankaraiah, such discrepancies did not exist. No dispute   was   raised   by   the   Housing   Board   about   the   so   called unauthorized occupation of the house by the appellant herein even after 1992 for a more than 2 decades. Therefore, to take advantage of the discrepancies with which the Housing Board and the original allottee   and   his   legal   heirs   having   co­existed   for   5   decades,   is completely unfair. Unfortunately, the Division Bench treated even a man who was dead 30 years ago and who had entered into two agreements ( a tenancy agreement in the first instance and a lease­ 7 cum­sale agreement in the second instance ) as having perpetrated fraud, by a skewed logic. Courts cannot be oblivious to the realities of life and we say no more. In fine, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Division 8. Bench is set aside and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is restored. The Housing Board shall execute a deed of transfer and register the same in favour of the appellant within a period of two months   from   the   date   of   receipt   of   this   order,   subject   to   the completion of the necessary formalities.  There will be no order as to costs.  …..…………....................J.       (Hemant Gupta) .…..………......................J (V. Ramasubramanian) APRIL  4,  2022 NEW DELHI. 8 ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.11 SECTION XII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16487/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-08- 2019 in WA No. 654/2019 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad) A. VENUGOPAL Petitioner(s) VERSUS TELANGANA HOUSING BOARD & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 04-04-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. [The reasoned order is uploaded on 07.04.2022] CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. G.sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. P. Shankar, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The reasoned order is placed on the file and is uploaded on 07.04.2022. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SWETA BALODI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file) 9 ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.11 SECTION XII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16487/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-08- 2019 in WA No. 654/2019 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad) A. VENUGOPAL Petitioner(s) VERSUS TELANGANA HOUSING BOARD & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 04-04-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. G.sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. P. Shankar, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Arguments concluded. Leave granted. The appeal is allowed. Detailed Judgment/Order to follow. (SWETA BALODI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) 10