1.       This revision under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 23.10.2019 of the State Commission in appeal no. 303 of 2019 arising out of the Order dated 31.10.2018 of the District Commission in complaint no. 196 of 2012.  

2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners (the ‘housing board’), and the respondent in person (the ‘complainant’) and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 31.10.2018 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 23.10.2020 of the State Commission and the petition.

3.       Briefly, as evinces from the appraisal(s) made by the two fora below, the complainant applied with the housing board to register for an M.I.G.-B house on 15.02.1983 under a special registration scheme in journalist category. He deposited an amount of Rs. 4600/-. The housing board registered him and issued a registration number to him. He was at serial no. 2 in the registered list. On 17.10.1985 the complainant informed the housing board in writing regarding change of his residential address. The housing board sent a letter on 25.01.1986 to deposit pre-allotment seed-money at his old address. The complainant did not receive the letter. Consequently he could not deposit the money in time. The housing board cancelled his registration. However the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 12,000/- being the pre-allotment seed-money on 11.05.1989. On 09.09.1989 he sent a letter to the housing board requesting it to include his name in the lottery for allotment. The housing board vide its letter dated 15.05.1989 informed the complainant that his name will be included in the lottery whenever it will be held after 12.05.1989. Then his original file went missing. Admittedly his file was inadvertently tagged with the court-case file relating to allotment of house no. 118/239 to one Mr. Shayam Sunder Bajaj which had gone into litigation. The name of the complainant was suddenly withdrawn at the last moment from the draw of lots held on 26.07.2003. The complainant was then successful for house no. 104/127 in the draw of lots held on 28.02.2004. The lottery was later on cancelled because of some irregularities in functioning within the housing board. No allotment letter of house no. 104/127 was issued to the complainant. His name was then included in the draw of lots held on 31.04.2004 wherein a house admeasuring 90 sq. mtrs. was allotted to him. The complainant refused the allotment as he had applied for allotment of a house of 189 sq. mtrs. and he was entitled for allotment of a house of the same size. Then on 22.03.2006 the complainant was intimated by the housing board that he had deposited Rs. 1,000/- less as restoration charges. He was also asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 35,400/- being the difference of seed-money for house of M.I.G.-B category. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.36,400/-, being the difference of restoration charges and of seed-money, and requested the housing board to include his name in the lottery to be held on 28.03.2006. The lottery was ultimately held on 13.04.2007 without including the name of the complainant but later on the same too was cancelled. Excluding the complainant all others who were registered with him in 1983 had been allotted houses during the course of time, the complainant was the only exception.

He filed a complaint with the District Commission in 2008.

The District Commission partly allowed the complaint, with reasons given, and directed that the housing board shall allot house no. 104/127 to the complainant “accepting his original priority” “at the same rate” within one month from the date of its Order and the amount deposited by the complainant shall be adjusted with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It also awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with cost of litigation of Rs. 25,000/-. It stipulated that in case its Order was not complied with within one month then the complainant shall be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

The State Commission vide its Order dated 23.10.2019 dismissed the appeal filed by the housing board and sustained the award made by the District Commission. 

The instant revision has now been preferred by the housing board before this Commission.

4.       Both the fora below have independently appraised the case and have reached the same conclusion that the complainant’s registration was erroneously cancelled by the housing board. They have not failed to notice that the director legal in the housing board had himself opined that the cancellation of the complainant’s registration was illegal and there is nothing on record to show that his opinion was in any way overruled by any superior authority. They have also taken note of the huge hiatus of time for which the complainant’s file went missing as it was tagged with some other court-case file by the housing board. The housing board’s unaccountable subjective functioning, which leaves much to be desired, has not escaped their notice. Nor has its whimsical inclusion or exclusion of the complainant, on and off, in the various lotteries conducted over the years escaped their attention. They have not failed to notice that all other similarly registered applicants including the ones lower in priority have been allotted houses over the time. They have taken note of the long drawn out troubles and travails which the complainant has been subjected to and have sufficiently and clearly brought out the patent deficiency and unfairness on the part of the housing board.

5.       Concurrent findings have been returned by the District Commission and the State Commission. The two fora appear to have passed well-reasoned orders, aptly dealing with the issues germane in the matter. Their Orders are a matter of record and no useful purpose will be served by reproducing them here all over again. Suffice is to say that we do not find any palpable crucial error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require fresh de novo re-appreciation in revision. We also do not find any jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored or erroneously ruled. As such, we discern no good ground for interference with the findings per se of the two fora.

6.       In respect of the award we find that by an interlocutory order the District Commission had ordered that status quo shall be maintained on house no. 104/127 for which the complainant was successful in the draw of lots held on 28.02.2004. It has then finally ordered for the said house itself to be allotted to the complainant, “accepting his original priority”, “at the same rate”, and the amount deposited by him to be adjusted with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It has additionally awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- as lumpsum compensation with the stipulation that if the payment is not made within one month the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

By restoring his original priority and ordering for allotment at the same rate and adjustment of the amount deposited by the complainant with reasonable interest of 9% per annum the District Commission has attempted to balance the equities and compensate the complainant for the loss and injury suffered as a consequence of the deficiency and unfairness on the part of the housing board. However the term “at the same rate” appears to be somewhat nebulous. The rates applicable on a particular date ought to have been specifically indicated while articulating the award so that there would be no scope for differing interpretations.

We notice that in its examination the District Commission in para 6 of its Order has mentioned that maintaining status quo with respect to house no. 104/127 was ordered on 15.09.2008. In the facts and circumstances of the case, to find some method in the tenuous situation, the rates as applicable on 15.09.2008, i.e. the date when status quo was ordered to be maintained and from which date apparently the house in question is lying vacant and unallotted awaiting disposal of this matter, appear to be just and appropriate. In our opinion allotment at the rates prevalent on 15.09.2008 shall be commensurate with the loss and injury suffered by the complainant and also be fair and reasonable towards both sides in arriving at an equitable resolution.

7.       As such the award made by the District Commission is being supplemented with the remark that the cost shall be worked out on the basis of the rates as applicable or prevalent on 15.09.2008. The rest of the award shall remain undisturbed.

The award as firmed up herein shall be complied with within eight weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.

8.       The revision stands disposed of as above.

9.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties and to their learned counsel as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.