Faridabad House Allottee’s Eviction Orders Set Aside After 6% Interest Deposit; P&H HC Leaves Further Dues To HSVP Decision

The petitioner obtained a civil-court decree directing the respondents to allot him an MIG house in Sector 28, Faridabad, and later entered into a hire-purchase tenancy agreement dated 10 July 1987, which recorded a tentative price of ₹1,51,600 and prior payments of ₹37,900.

Following non-payment of the demanded balance, eviction proceedings were initiated; the Collector ordered eviction on 27 March 2003, and the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed on 7 November 2003.

In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged those orders and the demand at revised rates.

During the proceedings, he deposited ₹2,28,550 on 31 May 2004 pursuant to an interim order requiring payment of the amount specified in the hire-purchase agreement with 6% interest.

The respondents maintained that a further amount was due, calculated principally at 10% interest and including other charges.

The parties took a fair stand, and the writ petition was disposed of on consensus.

The respondents’ proceedings arose under the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971, including the show-cause notice issued under Section 51(1), and the Haryana Public Premises (Recovery of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, under which the eviction proceedings were taken.

The petitioner invoked the principle that resumption or eviction should be a last resort, relying on M/s Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 540.

The Court did not undertake a separate determination of the applicable interest rate or expound a substantive rule; it disposed of the matter by consent, directing the authorities to notify and determine any outstanding liability after considering the petitioner’s payments and providing an opportunity to respond.

The Court noted that the petitioner had deposited the amount required by the interim order, with 6% interest, and that the parties’ remaining dispute concerned the applicable interest rate and any further sum due.

Rather than decide that accounting dispute on the tentative calculation produced by the respondents, the Court accepted the parties’ consensus: the eviction orders would be set aside, while the competent authority could issue a reasoned notice specifying any further liability and its legal basis.

The petitioner would have an opportunity to reply, and the Chief Administrator, HSVP, would decide the matter after a hearing if a reply were filed.

The respondents may issue a notice within three weeks detailing any amount due and its legal basis; the petitioner may reply within four weeks of receiving it.

If he replies, the Chief Administrator, HSVP, must decide the dispute after hearing him or his representative within three months.

Any amount determined to be payable must be deposited within one month in the circumstances specified by the Court; failing payment, the respondents may take proceedings, including eviction, in accordance with law.