M.P. Housing Board, who was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition. Respondent/complainants had purchased house No. H/D/17 on 10.2.2005. According to the Complainants, the allotted house was in a dilapidated condition and the construction was of an inferior quality. That the petitioner Board had charged Rs. 20,000/- for better location, which the Housing Board could not do. The housing board did not complete all the work in the house and gave the house without completing it. On possession being taken, these defects were pointed out to the petitioner Board but in vain. Complainants had to spend Rs. 2,00,000/- towards repair. On these allegations, complaint was filed before the District Forum. District Forum, vide its Order dated 01.09.2008 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh by way of damages, to refund Rs.19,643/- charged for better location along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date the amount was paid till realization. Rs.1,000/- were awarded by way of costs. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission upheld the direction of the District Forum granting Rs.1 lakh by way of compensation. Direction given by the District Forum to repair the house was set aside in view of the payment of Rs.1 lakh by way of damages by the petitioner to the respondents. State Commission did not deal specifically with the question regarding refund of better location charges. Aggrieved by this, petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition. Limited Notice as regards the better location charges was issued to the respondent on 18.11.2009. Respondent has been served and has put in appearance through her husband who also claims to be a co-owner of the house in question. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in Estate Manager, M.P. Housing Board vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta - Civil Appeal No.2599 of 2009 dated 16.4.2009 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Housing Board can charge better location charges provided it is one of the terms and conditions of the advertisement/brochure. Petitioner has specifically stated in the grounds of revision that as per policy, the Housing Board was entitled to charge for better location. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Estate Manager, M.P. Housing Board vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra), we set aside the direction issued by the fora below directing the petitioner to refund the better location charges. Rest of the order is upheld. The order passed by the fora below is modified to that extent. Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | | 
