STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Raj Kumar s/o Sh.Ram Pal, Flat No.2064, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.

                                                …..Appellant/Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1.     The Chandigarh Housing Board, (A Chandigarh Administration Undertaking) through its Chairman, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

2.     The Secretary, Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

.…..Respondents/Opposite Parties 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU,                    MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh.H.C.Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Sh.J.S.Brar, Advocate for the respondents.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.08.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant(now appellant).

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that the Opposite Parties initially allotted Flat No.2064, HIG (L) Category in Sector 45-C, Chandigarh to one Sh.Charanjit Singh, who further sold it to the complainant. The said flat was transferred in name of the complainant vide letter dated 07.07.2010. It was stated that as per Ann.C-2, the complainant was required to execute the hire purchase tenancy agreement/agreement to sell/lease deed with conversion to be obtained from the counter of the Opposite Parties within one month, failing which, the transfer of registration No.10773 and allotment was liable to be cancelled. In view of this, the Opposite Parties issued letter dated 4.3.2010 directing the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.33,719/- in the CHB Current A/c No.215794 and also to pay the ground rent of Rs.880/- due upto 31.3.2010. The complainant complied with the above requirements and deposited the amount vide receipt No.121039, dated 6.3.2010. The complainant also submitted HPTA Form on 15.7.2010. As per the terms & conditions of the allotment letter, the complainant executed an agreement and paid the requisite amount for conversion of flat from lease hold to free hold, which was accepted by the Opposite Parties vide receipt dated 20.7.2010 but nothing was done by them and on query under RTI Act, on line reply dated 23.4.2012 was received by the complainant that it was kept pending due to Court case. The complainant sent a letter dated 26.4.2012 to the Opposite Parties that the Court case related to different unit i.e. Flat No.1329, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh but due to the adamant attitude of the Opposite Parties, the complainant had suffered a lot. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In its written reply, it was stated that complainant submitted his request for conversion of DU No.2064, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh on 20.7.2010 and his case was forwarded to different Sections of the office for approval. It was further stated that summons from the Court of C.J.M., Chandigarh was received by the office of the Opposite Parties directing Sh.S.C.Malik, AO-III to appear before the Court, with the original record of DU No.2064, Sector 45, Chandigarh on 10.5.2011. A letter dated 23.4.2012 was sent to the complainant in reply to his application under RTI Act that the case of conversion of house from lease hold to free hold was kept pending due to Court case. It was further stated that as per Rule 10(vii) of Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Lease-Hold Land Tenure into Free Hold Land Tenure Rules 1996, the conversion could not be allowed in case the title of the property was disputed and until & unless the same was settled.  It was further stated that, the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the District Forum dismissed the complaint by wrongly placing reliance on Annexure R-1 because as per this document, in fact, the FIR was lodged against Smt.Savinderjeet Kaur r/o 1329/44-B, Chandigarh regarding the Dwelling Unit No.2064, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh and not in relation to  Dwelling Unit No.2064, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh. He further submitted that dwelling Unit No.2064, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh,  in question, was allotted in the name of Sh.Charanjeet Singh, the husband of Smt.Savinderjit Kaur on leasehold basis for a period of 99 years on 08.05.1984 as per Annexure C-1.  Thereafter the said unit was sold to one Surinder Kaur Bajwa on the basis of GPA on 20.07.1989 and then the said dwelling unit was purchased by the complainant and Smt.Shiela Rani through Sub General Power of attorney duly registered in the office of  the Sub Registrar, UT, Chandigarh on 20.06.2001. He further submitted that as per Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Lease Hold Land Tenure into free hold land Tenures Rules, 1996 (amended upto date), the complainant applied for conversion of the aforesaid flat from leasehold to free hold basis but the same was not converted and his application was kept pending by the Opposite Parties, due to Court case.  He further submitted that Smt.Savinderjeet Kaur, wife of Sh.Charanjit Kaur  has no interest/title in the dwelling unit in question. Moreover, the Opposite Parties failed to prove that the title of the dwelling unit, in question, was in dispute as no Civil or criminal case was pending before any Court of law.  He further submitted that the District Forum wrongly dismissed the complaint and hence, the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

9.                    On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties submitted that as per Annexure R-1, received from the S.H.O., Vigilance Cell, U.T., Chandigarh, dated 11.07.2012, a criminal case regarding the Dwelling Unit NO.2064, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh i.e. the unit in question, was still pending before the Court of Sh.Vijay James, J.M.I.C., Chandigarh.  He further submitted that as per Rule No.10(vii) of Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Lease-Hold Land Tenure into Free Hold Land Tenure Rules 1996 (Ann.C-9), the Conversion could not be allowed in cases where Title of the Property was in dispute and until and unless the dispute was duly settled.    He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal, is liable to be upheld.

10.                                      The complaint was filed by the complainant in respect of Dwelling Unit No.2064, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh and not in respect of dwelling unit No.2064, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh as depicted in Annexure R-1.  The perusal of the allotment letter, Annexure C-1 shows that the dwelling unit, in question, was allotted to Sh.Charanjit Singh. This fact is further fortified from Annexures C-2 and C-3 i.e. transfer of allotment of the dwelling unit, in question, in the name of the complainant. Since the said dwelling unit, was initially allotted to Sh.Charanjit Singh and not to Smt.Savinderjeet Kaur against whom an FIR was lodged in respect of Dwelling Unit No.2064, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh, it is, prima facie, proved that  Smt.Savinderjeet Kaur had no title or interest in the dwelling unit in question.  Moreover, nothing has been brought, on record, in the shape of documentary evidence by the Opposite Parties that any Civil Suit was pending in respect of the title of dwelling unit, in question, before any Court of law. In this view of the matter, the plea of the Opposite Parties that the title of the dwelling unit, in question, is in dispute is without any merit and substance and the same is rejected. The Opposite Parties, were, thus  deficient in rendering service to the complainant by not converting the said dwelling unit from lease hold basis to free hold basis.  Due to this act of the Opposite Parties, the complainant certainly suffered mental agony as well as physical harassment and was unnecessarily dragged to  litigation. As such, he is entitled to compensation on this count.

11.                                      The District Forum also failed to take into consideration the aforesaid aspects of case. Had the District Forum, appreciated the facts, circumstance and evidence, on record, in its proper perspective, it would not have fallen into an error, in holding that there was no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The order of the District Forum, thus, being, illegal and perverse, is liable to be set aside.

12.                  In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is accepted with costs and the order of the District Forum is set aside. The Opposite Parties are directed to:

i)                    Convert the Dwelling Unit No.2064, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh from lease hold basis to free hold basis, as per Rules.

ii)        Pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

iii)       Pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

13.                 The aforesaid order be complied with, by the Opposite Parties, within a period of 45 days, after the completion of all the formalities by the complainant failing which the Opposite Parties shall pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.10,000/- from the date of this order till its realization besides payment of costs of litigation.

14.                 However, the complainant is also directed to furnish the necessary documents, if desired, by the Opposite Parties.

15.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                                                  Sd/-    

11 .01.2013                              [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                                                                            Sd/-                                                                                              [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg