http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LALIT RAM

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/02/1997

BENCH: MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, K.T. THOMAS

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Thomas j.      This 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.      Bihar 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.      By 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.      On 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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 three occasions.      The 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.      At the  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.      In the  above situation, we do not think that this is a fit case  for interference with the order of the High Court. While 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 2.2.1993.