M.P. Housing Board, the petitioner herein, was opposite party before the District Forum. Respondent/complainant, vide his application dated 22.12.1997, applied for a ground floor house under hire-purchase scheme of the petitioner in Sukhaliya Scheme in Indore. Respondent was allotted H.No.CM-II/485, MIG II, Sukhaliya, Indore, M.P. in a lottery conducted on 23.12.1997. Allotment letter was issued on 13.1.1998 wherein it was mentioned that the annual instalment of the aforesaid house would be Rs.26,763/- + Rs.227 (other charges) = Rs.26,990/- which would be due on every 13th January of the year. Interest at the rate of 19% was calculated while calculating the annual instalments to be paid by the respondent. In pursuance to the letter of allotment, a Hire-Purchase Agreement dated 12.6.2002 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent with respect to the aforesaid house. It was clearly mentioned in the agreement that the respondent undertakes to pay annual instalment of Rs.26,990/- punctually and regularly and in case if there is any default in making the payment of the instalments agreed upon, the respondent undertakes to pay : i) interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of instalment for the period of default upto the day preceding the actual date of next instalment, ii) a penalty @ 24% p.a. on the defaulted amount, iii) furthermore @ 1% of the defaulted amount per day after the period stipulated in foregoing for a period of 10 days only. Respondent deposited the instalments on different dates, as on 6.7.2004, the respondent was to pay Rs.13,828/-. Respondent instead of depositing the balance amount and getting the sale agreement executed in his favour, filed the complaint on 21.9.2004 before the District Forum. Respondent alleged in the complaint that while from others interest was charged at the rate of 13.5% per annum whereas in his case the interest was calculated at the rate of 19.5%. It was prayed that the direction be issued to the petitioner to recalculate the interest for the period before 1.5.1998 on the deposited amount and refund the excess interest paid by the respondent besides Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. In pursuance to the Notice issued, the petitioner filed its reply to the respondent’s complaint. The petitioner raised question of limitation as the agreement was executed on 12.6.1998 and the respondent approached the Forum in the year 2004. Secondly, that since the parties had entered into a written contract, the Forum did not have the jurisdiction to go into the validity of the terms of the contract. Another fact pleaded by the petitioner was that Kamlesh Upadhyay had purchased the house in an auction of unsold houses specially conducted at “residence fair” which was organized to dispose of unsold houses in which a special rate of interest was offered to the persons who had purchased the houses in that fair as an incentive. District Forum allowed the complaint, aggrieved against which, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission. State Commission, without referring to any of the facts referred to above, dismissed the appeal simply by observing that the petitioner had acted in a discriminatory manner by charging interest at the rate of 19.5% from the respondent, whereas from Kamlesh Upadhyay the petitioner had charged interest at the rate of 13.5%. That the petitioner was guilty of treating equally situated persons unequally. The State Commission has neither decided the question regarding limitation nor the point whether the Forum had the jurisdiction to go into the validity of the terms of the contract. The State Commission has also not gone into the question whether the respondent was similarly situated to Kamlesh Upadhyay. State Commission, being the first court of appeal, is required to decide all the pleas raised on facts as well as on law. The State Commission has not decided any of the pleas raised by the petitioner either on facts or on law. For the reasons stated above, order under revision cannot be sustained and is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide the questions of facts as well as law raised by the petitioner in its first appeal. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 14.12.2010. All pleas are left open. Since this is an old matter, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt/production of certified copy of this order. | 
