Karnataka Housing Board had allotted a Middle Income Group House No.8 in Survey No.273/3B of Padavu Village, Shakthinagar, Mangalore at a provisional cost of Rs.1,20,000/-.  A Lease–cum–Sale Agreement was entered into between the parties.  Respondent made an initial payment of Rs.12,000/- and the balance amount of

-2-

Rs.1,08,000/- together with interest at the rate of 14% per annum or at such higher rate of interest as the vendor may fix from time to time, was to be paid in 144 Monthly Equated Installments (EMIs) at the rate of Rs.1,591/- starting from 22.4.1990.  As per Clause 10 of the Lease Agreement, the option was left with the respondent to make the payment in lumpsum along with the interest.  Respondent paid the total amount of Rs.1,08,000/- on various dates, the details of which are as under:

            “SL. No.           Date                Amount

1.                     --                      Rs.5,000/- Paid with application

                                                for allotment

2.                     18.2.1989        Rs.7,000/-

3.                     17.5.1990        Rs.15,901/-

4.                     18.6.1990        Rs.49,000/-

5.                     05.9.1990        Rs.15.000/-

6.                     06.1.1992        Rs.27,000/-

7.                     21.3.1992        Rs.1,100/-

                                                _________

                                    Total    Rs.1,20,001/-

          Thereafter, the petitioner asked the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.16,953/- towards final cost of the house.  It was mentioned in the said letter that if the respondent paid the amount before 31.10.2000, he will be given a concession of Rs.2,042/-.  Respondent availed of

-3-

concession and paid the sum of Rs.14,911/- on 20.10.2000, thus availing the concession of Rs.2,042/-.  Thereafter, the petitioner raised an additional demand of Rs.58,816/-, aggrieved against which the respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint with costs which were assessed at Rs.6,000/-.

          Against the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been disposed of by a short and cryptic order by observing thus:

          “The complainant is liable to pay Rs.16,953/- towards the final cost of the house and when the Complainant has paid the said amount, there is no reason for the OPs to deny execution of the Sale Deed on the ground that the Complainant is still due Rs.58,816/-.  Therefore, in our view, the District Forum is right in directing the OPs to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the Complainant and to pay him compensation and cost of Rs.6,000/-.”

          The State Commission is the court of first appeal and, therefore, final court of fact.  It is Incumbent on State Commission to record its independent finding based on evidence and give reasons

-4-

in support thereof.  In the present case, the State Commission has neither recorded any findings nor given any reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at.  Such an order cannot be sustained.

For the reasons stated above, the order under appeal is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law after recording its reasons in support the findings.

          Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on

 09.9.2010.

          Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of certified copy of this order.