Karnataka Housing Board which was the opposite party before the District Forum has filed the Revision Petition against order dated 29.11.06 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, the State Commission) in appeal No.2543/2006 dismissing the appeal and upholding the order of the District Forum.  The District Forum had directed the Petitioner to refund the sum of Rs.73,969/- to the Respondent along with Rs.1,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs. The brief facts leading to filing the present Revision Petition are as under:-

Facts:

            On 24.07.2000, the Petitioner entered into a Lease-Cum-Sale Agreement with the Respondent for the Lease-cum-Sale of house bearing No.149/D, MIG-II, in Kotnoor Extension, Gulbarga.  The cost of house was fixed at Rs.2,94,500/- out of which the Respondent paid Rs.73,969/-.  The rest of the amount was required to be paid in 144 equated monthly installments of Rs.3,759/- each.

          Pursuant to the aforesaid Agreement, Respondent was put in possession of the house property in question on 19.09.2000.  When the Respondent failed to pay even a single installment due to be paid by him as per Agreement, a show cause notice was issued on 17.05.2003 by the Petitioner requiring the Respondent to pay the balance amount. On the continued default of the Respondent, a final notice was issued to the Respondent by the Petitioner demand the payment of the balance sale consideration.  On 09.05.2006, the Petitioner issued an eviction notice to the Respondent directing him to vacate the house in question.  Ultimately, the Petitioner took possession of the house on 03.01.2006 from the Respondent.

          Respondent/Complainant being aggrieved by the action taken by the Petitioner, filed the complaint alleging that in spite of his offering to pay Rs.1 lakh, the Petitioner did not accept the payment and forcibly evicted him from the house.

          District Forum came to the conclusion that as the Respondent had not paid even a single installment he was a defaulter but as he had offered to pay the sum of Rs.1 lakh after eviction from the house, the Respondent was entitled to the refund of  Rs.73,969/- which had been paid by him, along with costs of Rs.1,000/-.

          Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

          In response to the notice issued, Respondent has sent his written reply.  Notice sent for today’s hearing to the Respondent has been received back with the postal remarks “left”.  Since the Respondent did not appear on any of the dates and sent his reply, we proceed to dispose of Revision Petition after taking into consideration the objections filed by him.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contends that the Respondent having occupied/used the house for 7 ½ years, was not entitled for refund of Rs.73,969/- which had been deposited by him.  According to him, under clause 13 of the Agreement, for non-payment of the amount due, the lease could be terminated and amount already paid forfeited. 

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has been heard at length. Clause 13 of the Agreement reads as under :-

“ In the event of the Lessee/Purchaser committing default in payment of three consecutive monthly installments or difference in cost of price in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement, the Lessor/Vendor, may without prejudice to the remedies open to him under the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962, terminate the lease at any time after giving the Lessee/Purchaser one month notice in writing and on such determination the Lessee/Purchaser shall surrender possession of the property.  In such cases all the payments made by the Lessee/Purchaser are liable to be forfeited to the Lessor/Vendor.”

          Clause 13 of the Agreement provides that in case of default of three consecutive monthly installments or difference in costs of price by the Lessee, the Housing Board is entitled to terminate the lease at any time after giving one month notice in writing.  On such determination, the lessee/purchaser is required to surrender the possession of the house in question and the payment already paid by him is liable to be forfeited to the Lessor/Vendor.  There is no dispute that the Respondent was a defaulter as he had failed to pay any of the installments due to him.  The Petitioner Housing Board was fully justified in terminating the lease and evicting the Respondent.  The words “in such cases, all the payment made by the Lessee/Purchaser are liable to be forfeited to the Lessor/Vendor” indicate that the Petitioner could forfeit the amount by passing an order.  ‘Liable to be forfeited’ implies that the forfeiture is not automatic. The concerned authority has the option to forfeit the amount.  The same could be done by passing an order.  In the absence of order forfeiting the amount, it cannot be assumed that the amount stood forfeited automatically. In the present case, the Petitioner did not take the defence that they had forfeited the amount by passing a separate order.  No order forfeiting the amount has been placed on record by the Petitioner.  The law requires the Petitioner to pass an order of forfeiture which the Petitioner has failed to do so.  The Fora below have rightly directed the Petitioner to refund the amount deposited by the Respondent.

          For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.