Prio Ranjan Roy Vs. Bihar State Housing Board and Others - Court Judgment

K.P. Sinha, Member:

1. This is a Complaint filed by Mr. Prio Ranjan Roy against the Housing Board, Bihar. In the complaint petition it has been averred by the complainant that as early as 28.3.66 he was allotted House No. 3K43 by a Government order and the required deed registration was executed on the 15th May, 1966 which was duly registered on 1.8.66. After registration of the deed the District Development Officer, Ranchi wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer, Housing Department, Ranchi directing him to hand over possession of House No. 3K43 to Shri Roy. This house was located in Mohalla Bariyatu of Ranchi Town. Shri Roy also paid the first installment of Rs. 3,000/- as stipulated and inspite of the specific order from the District Collectorate to the Executive Engineer of the Housing Department the possession of the house allotted to him was not given. Again on 13.7.67 a Government order was issued for handing over possession of the house to the complainant. The possession of the allotted house, however, continued to elude Shri Roy. On 2.2.69 another order was issued allotting House No. 2K91 to Shri Roy. This house according to the complainant was in a most dilapidated condition and was not worthy of habitation, and he, therefore, laid down certain conditions for getting House No. 3K91 in lieu of House No. 3K43 which was originally allotted to him in the Bariyatu Housing Colony. In Annexure-IX of the complaint petition it has been said that all conditions imposed were accepted excepting payment of standard rent to him. The possession of House No. 3K91 was also not given to him and this house, it has been averred by Shri Roy, continued in the illegal possession of Smt. Sumitra Devi. It has been contended by the complainant Smt. Sumitra Devi was a Minister of the State Government and did not belong to Low Income Group category and hence could not have been allotted House No. 3K91. The possession of House No. 3K43 originally allotted to him was given to one Smt. Ishwari Devi.

2. The Bihar State Housing Board was constituted in the year 1972 after taking over all the assets and liabilities of the Housing Department of the State Government in respect of allotment of plots/ “houses and it was the Housing Board which took a decision on 16.9.74 to allot House No. 3K91 to Smt. Sumitra Devi. The net result in respect of the complainant has been that no house has been given in the possession of Shri Roy even though he satisfied all the pre-conditions. The complainant has averred that he approached the authorities in the Housing Board as also the Government but to no avail and he says he has been running from pillar to post in vain. Till date no house has been allotted to him and he has been put to difficulty with regard to a residential accommodation for himself after retirement in 1984. He contends that because of the house having not been given in his possession he had to hire residential accommodation on rent and he has paid Rs. 57,500/-as rent till the date of complaint (7.10.91). He was forced to hire the private house because of the house allotted to him by the Housing Department was not made over to him in physical possession. He has also averred that the landlord of the rental house has also filed an eviction suit No. 78/90 in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Ranchi and for increase in monthly rental amounting to Rs. 5,000/- per month. On account of these difficulties which he has been facing on account of the physical possession of the house have not been made over to him he has sought the following reliefs under the Consumer Protection Act :

1. A compensation of Rs. 6,25,000/- for the harassment cause to him.

2. A sum of Rs. 57,500/- paid by him as rent.

3. Refund of Rs. 5,300/- paid by him to the Housing Board as per terms and conditions of the Board in his favour alongwith interest @ 18%.

The opposite party — The Housing Board have filed their show cause and in this petition they have made the following points : —

1. The State Government which had originally allotted the house in favour of Shri Roy has not been a party.

2. This dispute about the allotment of house to him is not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the Board is not carrying on any business of House Properties rather it is a statutory body constituted for making available plots and houses to people.

3. The matter of alternative allotment to be made in favour of Shri Roy is still pending with the authorities of the Board and taking all these facts in the consideration it has been contended that the complaint filed by Shri Roy is fit to be dismissed. It will be worthwhile to point out here that in the show cause petition the facts as contended in the complaint petition of Shri Roy which has been duly supported by an affidavit filed by him has not been disputed and reference to various orders and letters have been said to be matters ‘on record.

3. We have heard the learned Advocates for the Housing Board and the complainant and there is no doubt in our minds that allotment was duly made in favour of Shri Roy in the year 1966, but he was not given possession of the allotted house in spite registration of the deed and in spite of Shri Roy having fulfilled all the conditions enjoined within the terms of the allotment. Instead the house was allotted to Smt. Ishwari Devi. Thereafter another house was allotted in his favour but the possession of the house was not given to him even though specially ordered. So done after the house habitable in lieu of the earlier allotment. This house was allotted to Smt. Sumitra Devi. Thereafter no other allotment has been made in his favour and even though much before his retirement he took steps for having an accommodation for himself, he had to hire a rented accommodation after his retirement in the year 1984. As for the point raised by the opposite party that the Secretary to the Government in the Housing Department was a necessary party suffice it would to refer to Section 63(1) of the Housing Board Act which lays down that all asset and liabilities relating to the work of allotment of houses/plots of the Housing Department of the State Government transferred to the Housing Board from the date of the Housing Board was constituted in 1972. Since the Housing Board took over all responsibilities and the assets of the Government it was not necessary for the complainant to make the State Government a party in the complaint filed by him.

4. Regarding the non-maintainability of this dispute under the terms of the Act we would like to refer to the finding of the National Commission in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Garima Shukla and Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC)=(1991) Consumer Cases 151. The National Commission in this case has held, “The Board is clearly engaged in rendering service for consideration to the public and therefore those who are allotted plots/houses from the Board are clearly consumers falling within the definition in Section 2(d) of the Act. Again under Section 2(o) of the Act the definition of the term ‘Service is very comprehensive : it means ‘service of any description including banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, entertainment etc. This leaves no room for doubt that the type of service which the Board renders to the public for a consideration is clearly covered by Section 2(o)”.

5. In the light of above findings of the National Commission we have no doubt that complaint filed by Shri Roy against the Housing Board is maintainable under the Act.

6. So far as the point of his case still being pending for decision in the Housing Board is concerned we would like to point out here that this has been said on a number of occasions in the argument before us and the time was prayed for and given for finalizing the pending matter of Shri Roy, so that the Housing Board itself could redress the grievances of the complainant. It was submitted before the Commission that his case was to be taken up in the meeting of the Board which, was fixed in January, 1993. Later it was postponed to February, 1993. In that meeting it is now being said by the department by a petition dated 31.3.93 that the case of Shri Roy could not be taken. On this date another adjournment was sought for and it has been prayed that the orders on the complaint fixed for today be not passed and the State Commission should avoid the decision in this regard till the next meeting of the Board. By postponing this matter again and again for a decision by the Housing Board regarding allotment of house to Mr. Roy which matter has been pending with for about 27 years now no useful purpose would appear to be served. The Board had, ample opportunity over this long period to take a decision on the matter to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant.

7. Along with this petition dated 31.3.93 an unsigned and un-certified copy of the order of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of special leave against the First Appeal No. 10 of 1990 of the National Commission has also been filed. This order only says that the special leave granted. In the absence of any details above the facts of the case which have not been made available we just do not know whether the case of Shri Roy who is the complainant before us is affected in any way by the findings of the Honble Supreme Court in that case. It has also not been indicated whether the Honourable Supreme Court heard the appeal and what orders were passed in the appeal. It has been mentioned in this petition that the details of this case will be filed shortly. We do not appreciate this belated request. There has been a number of hearings in this case and the opposite party had moved the enough opportunity to make its pleadings. We, therefore, do not think that there is any reason to postpone the orders in this case fixed for today.

8. After hearing the learned Advocates and perusing the records we feel that the Housing Board has been negligent even callous with regard to the allotment of a house and possession given thereof to the complainant. This is deficiency in service. We would, therefore, direct that the complainant be compensated by allotment of another house of similar type as to 3K43 and possession of the same be given to him. We would also direct that the complainant to be further compensated by the Housing Board for the rental paid by him for accommodation hired by him after retirement. Shri Roy deposited a sum of Rs. 5,260/- as per terms of allotment of House No. 3K43 to the Board on various dates. This amount has to be returned to him and will also carry and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit to the date of refund.

9. For all the tribulations, anxieties and the delay in making the accommodation available to Shri Roy by the Housing Board we would further direct the Housing Board to compensate to the complainant to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. All these payments have to be made within three months of the date of the order and a similar house in a similar Housing Colony be made available to Shri Roy by the Housing Board within a period of three months from today.

Complaint allowed.