1. PETITIONER Housing Board which was the Opposite Party before the District Forum has filed this Revision Petition against the order and judgment dated 8.3.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in appeal No. 339/2006 whereby the State Commission modifying the order of the District Forum has directed the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 Society to transfer the plot No. 14/8 admeasuring 9 x 15 mtrs. in Pragati Nagar, Ujjain and execute the necessary lease deed in favour of the Complainant/Respondent No. 1 on payment of Rs. 23,796.55 by him and Rs. 94,000 by the Society, Respondent No. 2, with interest @ 12% p.a. from 24.10.2000 to the Petitioners.
2. RESPONDENT No. 2, Bharat Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as ''Society '') (O.P. No. 1 before the District Forum) purchased/acquired land Khasra No. 355 admeasuring 3.126 hectares at Bharatpuri, Ujjain in 1994 for development of residential plots for allotment to its Members. On 25.11.1994, Society entered into an agreement with the Petitioners to develop the said area on payment of the development charges by the Society and both the parties thereafter agreed to execute registered lease deeds of the individual plots in favour of the Members of the Society. Petitioners developed in all 142 plots in the said area and executed lease deed of 136 plots in favour of the various Members of the Society during the years 1999-2000.
Thereafter,vide letter dated 25.5.2000, Petitioners agreed to make 20 more plots available to the Members of the Co-operative Society @ Rs. 875.43 per sq. mtr. These plots consisted of 2 MIG of 9 x 18 mtrs., 11 MIG of 9 x 15 mtrs., 3 LIG of 8 x 12 mtrs. and 4 EWS of 5 x 10 mts. Out of the 20 plots, 16 plots were allotted and leased out to the various Members of the Society during the year 2000 to 2002. However, the remaining 4 plots were withheld for allotment by the Petitioners as the Society did not deposit the balance development and other charges amounting to Rs. 3,48,000 towards premium and Rs. 5,55,754 as interest on the development charges. Out of these remaining 4 plots, one MIG plot No. 14/8 admeasuring 9 x 15 mtrs. was allotted by the Society to the Respondent No. 1/Complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as ''Respondent No. 1 '') who deposited a sum of Rs. 1,01,050 with the Society on 24.10.2000.
3. SOCIETY wrote a letter to the Petitioners to execute lease deed in respect of the plot allotted to the Respondent No. 1 in his favour but the Petitioners refused to do so unless the outstanding development and other charges are deposited by the Society.
4. COMPLAINANT , being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging that since the lease deed was not executed in her favour by the opposite parties could not get constructed the house in time and was compelled to live in a tenanted premises.
Respondent Society, on being served, filed its written statement admitting that Respondent No. 1 had deposited the amount of Rs. 1,01,050 and she was allotted the plot in question. It was further stated that the lease deed could not be executed in favour of the Respondent No. 1 as the Petitioners refused to execute the lease deed despite having received the development and other charges. That there was no deficiency, in service on their part as the Society had written a letter to the Petitioners to execute lease deed in favour of the Respondent No. 1.
5. PETITIONERS , on being served, filed its written statement stating that the lease deed could not be executed in favour of the Respondent No. 1 as the Society did not deposit the development charges and they were informed only on 6.4.2004 by the Society that Respondent No. 1 had been allotted a plot.
6. DISTRICT Forum after taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that there was a dispute between the Society and the Petitioners regarding the outstanding development charges for which the Respondent No. 1 could not denied to her right to get the lease/sale deed executed. Accordingly, District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioners to execute the sale/lease deed in respect of plot No. 14/8 in favour of the Respondent No. 1. Opposite parties were also directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards compensation to the Respondent No. 1.
Petitioners, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission held that the plot allotted to the Respondent No. 1 was not a part of 142 plots which were developed under the agreement executed between the parties on 25.11.1994. It was one of the 20 plots which were made available by the Petitioners to the Societyvide letter dated 25.5.2000 independent of the earlier agreement. That in the letter dated 25.5.2000 no demand of any amount due towards development charges or interest was made nor payment of any such amount was made as a condition precedent for transfer of these 20 plots. Petitioners had already executed sale deed of 16 plots out of these 20 plots in favour of the Members of the Society irrespective of the dues under the previous agreement. Society had collected a sum of Rs. 1,01,050 from the Respondent No. 1 and it was liable to remit the said amount to the Petitioners. Accordingly, State Commission disposed of the appeal thus:
(i) The Respondent No. 1/complainant shall pay to or deposit with appellant UDA Rs. 23,796.65 with interest @ 12% p.a. from 24.12.2000. (ii) The Respondent No. 2 Society shall remit the said sum of Rs. 94,000 to the appellant-UDA with interest @ 12% p.a. from 24.12.2000. (iii) That on payment/deposit, as aforesaid and within 30 days thereof, the appellant and respondent No. 2 Society shall transfer the plot No. 14/8 area 9 x 15 mtrs. In Pragati Nagar, Ujjain to Respondent No. 1/complainant and execute necessary transfer deed in her favour at latter ''s costs. (iv) That respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to enforce and execute this order against both the opposite parties (i.e. appellant and respondent No. 2) by taking recourse to Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. (v) That Respondent No. 2 Society shall bear complainant ''s cost of both the fora and the same is quantified at Rs. 5,000. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
7. LEARNED Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contends that the State Commission erred in holding that the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement dated 25.11.1994 were not applicable to the Respondent No. 1 and that the letter dated 25.5.2000 was alien to the said agreement. He further contends that the letter dated 25.5.2000 has its genesis only through the agreement dated 25.11.1994 and all the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 25.11.1994 are applicable for the allotment of the additional 20 plots. That the Petitioners had received the amount in respect of the 16 plots out of 20 plots and, therefore, the lease deeds were executed in respect of only 16 plots. Society had failed to make the payment for remaining 4 plot and, therefore, the sale deeds were not executed in respect of these 4 plots. As against this, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 supported the order of the State Commission.
8. AN agreement dated 25.11.1994 had been executed between the Society and the Petitioners to develop 142 plots on the land acquired by the Society. Thereafter,vide letter dated 25.5.2000, Petitioners agreed to make 20 additional plots available to the Members of the Co-operative Society @ Rs. 875.43 per sq. mtr. Respondent No. 1 deposited a sum of Rs. 1,01,050 with the Society and she was allotted plot No. 14/8 admeasuring 9x15 mtrs. out of the additional 20 plots. Admittedly, out of additional 20 plots, sale deeds in respect of 16 plots had been executed. The sale deeds of 16 plots had been executed notwithstanding the pending dues under the previous agreement. Under the circumstances, the Petitioners and the Society were liable to execute the sale/lease deed in respect of the plot No. 14/8 in favour of the Respondent No. 1. The terms and conditions of the agreement dated 25.11.1994 were not applicable to the Respondent No. 1 which is evident from the fact that the Respondent No. 1 was charged the premium of the plot on a different rate i.e. Rs. 875.53 per sq. mtr. indicated in the letter dated 25.5.2000. The premium of MIG plot admeasuring 9 x 15 mtrs. allotted to the Respondent No. 1 as per letter dated 25.5.2000 would come to Rs. 1,18,196.66. Respondent No. 1 had deposited Rs. 1,01,050 with the Society on 24.10.2000. Society had charged Rs. 94,400 towards cost of the plot and remaining amount was charged on various other counts to be credited in the Society ''s account. Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,18,196.55 - Rs. 94,400=Rs. 23,796.55 was still due from the Respondent No. 1 towards the price of the plot. State Commission has rightly directed the Respondent No. 1 to pay the balance amount of Rs. 23,796.55 and Respondent No. 2 to pay the amount of Rs. 94,000 lying deposited with the Society to the Petitioners along with interest @ 12% p.a.w.e.f. 24.10.2000. Interest has been awarded to compensate the Petitioners for the delayed payment. Order passed by the State Commission in the given facts and circumstances of the case is just and appropriate. The same does not call for any interference. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.
