Daulat Singh Rathore vs Rajasthan Housing Board on 4 December, 2017

                                                        NON-REPORTABLE

                               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                               CIVIL APPEAL No. 2832 OF 2007


                         Daulat Singh Rathore                    ...Appellant(s)



                                                VERSUS


                         Rajasthan Housing Board              ….Respondent(s)


                                         JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and order dated 20.02.2006 passed by the

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices

Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as

“MRTP Commission”) in UTPE No. 207 of 1998

whereby the MRTP Commission disposed of the
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL
Date: 2017.12.04
complaint and discharged the notice of enquiry
16:07:23 IST
Reason:

1
holding that the allegation of unfair trade practice

against the respondent are not proved.

2) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

They, however, need mention infra to appreciate the

short issue involved in the appeal.

3) The Respondent herein is a State Housing

Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”). The

Board is constituted for the State of Rajasthan

under the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

4) Pursuant to the Schemes introduced by the

Board for sale of different types of Houses/flats in

the city of Jodhpur, the Board invited applications

from public at large in the year 1982 for sale of

different categories of the houses/flats.

5) The appellant made an application on

27.12.1982 (Annexure-P-1) to the Board for

allotment of one flat to him at Jodhpur under a

Scheme called, Middle Income Group “B” category.

2
On 30.05.1983, the appellant deposited a sum of

Rs.4,600/- as registration amount and then

deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 18.09.1993

being first instalment.

6) Thereafter, there arose disputes between the

appellant and the Board for sale of the flat which, in

the first instance, led to filing of the petition being

Writ Petition No.4707/1993 by the appellant in the

High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. By order

dated 04.05.1995, the High Court dismissed the

writ petition as having rendered infructuous.

7) The appellant then took recourse to two

remedies for ventilating his grievance against the

Board. He filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 23/2001

in the Court of ADJ(I) at Jodhpur on 02.07.2001

challenging therein the actions of the Board and

simultaneously filed a complaint being UTPE No.

207/1998 before the MRTP Commission, New

Delhi against the Board.

3

8) So far as the suit is concerned, it is still

pending and so far as the complaint is concerned, it

was dismissed by the MRTP Commission by

impugned order dated 20.02.2006 giving rise to

filing of this appeal by way of special leave by the

appellant in this Court. This Court granted leave

on 17.05.2007.

9) On 11.08.2016, this Court recorded in the

proceeding that the appellant has given a proposal

to the Board for reconsideration of his case for

allotment of the flat. This Court observed that the

Board should look into the appellant’s proposal with

objectivity and call the appellant personally to

resolve the dispute out of the Court. On 19.10.2016,

learned counsel for the respondent made a

statement that the Board has decided to allot one

flat to the appellant and the details of the same

would be placed on record within 2 weeks. On

23.03.2017, this Court wanted to find out the prices

4
of the flats between 2005 to 2010. The Board has

accordingly placed on record the details of the

prices of the flats.

10) It is in the light of these background facts, the

question arises as to what order needs to be passed

for the disposal of the appeal.

11) Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusing the record of the case and

further keeping in view the nature of the

controversy, stand taken by the both parties and

lastly, the interim orders passed by this Court on

various dates mentioned above, we are of the

considered opinion that this appeal can be disposed

of finally by passing the following directions.

12) In our opinion, the directions given

hereinbelow would balance the equities between the

parties and also safeguard their interest in relation

to the subject matter of the appeal. The following

are the directions:

5

(i) The Board will allot one flat to the
appellant in Jodhpur in Board’s Middle
Income Group “B” Housing Scheme.

(ii) The appellant will pay the price of
the flat selected by him as per the
approved Government’s price prevalent
and in force as on the date of this
judgment.

(iii) The Board will adjust a sum of
Rs.19,600/- + interest @12% per annum
to be calculated on Rs. 19,600/- from
the date of its payment by the appellant
to the Board till the date of execution of
sale deed by the Board in appellant’s
favour from the total price and after
giving adjustment of the said amount,
i.e.,(principal amount Rs.19,600/- and
interest) the balance would be considered
as final price payable by the appellant to
the Board for purchase of flat.

(iv) In other words, the appellant will
pay a total price of the flat to the Board
after deducting Rs.19,600/- + interest to
be calculated @ 12 % p.a. on Rs.19,600/-

6
from the date the said payment was made
by the appellant to the Board till the date
of execution of sale deed of the flat.

(v) The Board will accordingly work out
the price of the flat, as directed above,
and inform the appellant.

(vi) If the appellant deposits the entire
sale consideration, as directed above,
within the time fixed by the Board in the
notice sent to the appellant, the Board
will execute the sale deed in favour of the
appellant and also in favour of appellant’s
first blood relation jointly along with the
appellant, in case, the appellant
expresses his wish to allow any of his
blood relation to join with him as
co-owner in execution of the sale deed. It
is because it was stated at the bar that
the appellant is now quite aged. This
liberty is, therefore, granted to the
appellant.

(vii) If the appellant fails to pay the price
within the time fixed by the Board then a
sum of Rs.19,600/- deposited by the

7
appellant with the Board shall stand
forfeited.

(viii) Let all the formalities, as directed
above, be completed within 6 months
from the date of receipt of this judgment
by the parties under intimation to both as
an outer limit to give quietus to this
litigation with no claim of any kind
surviving against both the parties for
future.

13) In view of foregoing directions, we do not

consider it necessary to examine the legal issues

arising in the case.

14) The appeal stands disposed of finally.

……………………………………….J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

……………………………………..J.
[NAVIN SINHA]

New Delhi;

December 04, 2017

8

Article source: Supreme Court

EmailEmail
PrintPrint
WP Socializer Aakash Web