The complainant/respondent booked a residential flat with the petitioner, Rajasthan Housing Board under its Special Registration Scheme, 2010.  Vide allotment letter dated 30.03.2012, the complainant was allotted house no. 1-D-15 in Gulabpura Yojana Bhilwara, for a total consideration of Rs. 3,25,878/-.  The possession of the aforesaid house was taken by the complainant on 25.05.2012, in terms of the possession letter issued by the petitioner board.  The grievance of the complainant is that when he inspected the aforesaid house, he found that instead of being a newly constructed house, it was an old dilapidated house in the condition of an old Khandar (ruins).  The complainant took photographs of the house, which the petitioner board had allotted to him and approached the concerned District Forum, by way of a complaint, seeking compensation amounting to Rs. 1 lakh for the mental torture and Rs. 50,000/- for depriving him for the use and utilization of the house.  He also sought direction to the petitioner board to give a newly constructed house of the same value and the same type to him, in lieu of the old dilapidated house, which the petitioner board had handed over to him.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner board, inter-alia, on the ground that the possession of the house was taken by the complainant after thorough checking and scrutiny and he had also acknowledged that neither there was any deficiency in the house nor would he make any complaint in future.  It was also stated in the reply that though the estimated value of the flat as per the brochure issued by the petitioner board was Rs. 5.6 lakhs, the house in question had been given to the complainant at a much lesser cost.

3.      The District Forum, vide its order dated 30.07.2013, directed the petitioner board to make necessary repairs in the house allotted to the complainant and to do white washing in it.  The petitioner board was also directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.

          Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner board preferred an appeal before the concerned State Commission.  The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.01.2014, the petitioner Board is before this Commission, by way of this revision petition.

4.      Since, there is a delay of 152 days in filing the revision petition, I.A. No. 6630/2014 has been filed for condonation of the aforesaid delay.

5.      The only question which arose for consideration of the District Forum in this complaint was as to whether the house allotted to the complainant was defective or not.  A perusal of the order passed by the District Forum would show that the complainant filed his own affidavit by way of evidence, adverting to the defects in the house, which was allotted to him.  Since the complainant himself saw the house allotted to him and had an opportunity to note down the deficiencies and defects found therein, he was a competent witness to depose with respect to the deficiency, he found in the house.  On the other hand, the petitioner board did not file affidavit of any Engineer, who may have inspected the house allotted to the complainant and then certified that there existed no defect in the house.  Even otherwise, the order passed by the District Forum mandates the petitioner board only to carry out such repairs as are found in the house.  For this purpose, engineers of the board will have to inspect the house, identify the defects therein and then take steps to remove those defects.  I fail to appreciate what can be a reasonable objection to the aforesaid directions issued by the District Forum.  The house in question having been allotted by the petitioner board, it is a part of his obligations to carry out the repairs, if any required in the said house.  Therefore, no reasonable exception can be taken to the directions given by the District Forum.

6.      The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the State Commission does not deal with the contentions advanced by the petitioner board and, therefore, cannot said to be a speaking order.  I, however, need not go into that aspect of the matter since, I have myself examined the matter on its merits.  In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the District Forum does not call for any interference.

7.      As regards the contention that the allottee had certified, while taking possession, that there was no defect in the house and he would not complain of any such defects in the future, it is an undisputable position that the clause in the printed terms of the possession letter, issued by the petitioner board and no allottee is handed over the possession unless he signs the possession letter containing the aforesaid terms.

8.      Coming to the contention that the house in question was allotted at a reduced price, as against the estimated price of Rs. 5.6 lakhs, indicated in the brochure, in my view, mere allotment at lesser cost does not justify the allotment of a house which is in dilapidated and inhabitable condition.  Even if the petitioner board allotted the house at a lesser price on account of its being in dilapidated condition and non-liveable condition, it ought to have stated so in the allotment letter and the possession letter issued by it.  In all probabilities, had the petitioner board stated so in the allotment letter and the possession letter, the allottee would not have accepted the allotment even at the alleged reduced cost.

9.      For the reasons stated in above, since I find no merit in the revision petition, I, therefore, need not take a view on the application, seeking the condonation of delay of 152 days in filing the said petition.  The revision petition as well as the accompanying application seeking condonation of delay are  hereby dismissed.