Bihar State Housing Board & Ors Vs. Lalit Ram  INSC 105 (3
MOHAN PUNCHHI, K.T. THOMAS Thomas
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
above situation, we do not think that this is a fit case for interference with
the order of the High Court.
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