Decided on September 23,2013

Balwant Rai Through Gpa Ashok Kumar Appellant
Housing Board Haryana Through Its Chief Administrator Respondents


REKHA GUPTA,MEMBER - (1.) REVISION petition no. 2044 of 2011 has been filed against the impugned order dated 19.01.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ( the State Commission) in appeal no. 2839 of 2008.
(2.) THE District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (the District Forum) vide order dated 10.11.2006, in complaint no. 319 of 2005 has held that: It is clear that the OPs have failed to give the opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing the ejectment order and furthermore, the Consumer Protection Act, is made to protect the rights of the consumer. So if for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that the petitioner has defaulted in payments even then keeping in view the fact that the house is a prime necessity in the life and when a poor person has paid almost all in respect of a house in such a situation the OPS cannot eject the petitioner without giving personal hearing and at the most the OPs can charge the due amount with interest from the petitioner. So we hold that the ejectment order dated 14.06.2006 is illegal and void and the OPs are liable to hand over the possession of the house no. 513 GF, Sector - 6, Housing Board Colony, Panipat on receipt of due amount together with interest from the petitioner. For the reasons recorded above, we hold that the ejectment order passed by the OPs in respect of the house no. 513 GF, LIG, Sector 6, Housing Board Colony Panipat is illegal and void and not binding upon the petitioner further, we direct the petitioner to make the entire due amount with interest at the agreed rate of interest in between the parties within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter the OPs shall hand over the possession of the said house to the petitioner within a period of 15 days. The complaint accepted accordingly. 
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the respondents/ opposite parties filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the District and also dismissed the complaint stating that undisputedly, the complainant had purchased the house under Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement and for that reasons the present controversy cannot be termed as a Consumer Dispute between the parties. The District Consumer Forum has not considered the present case in a perspective manner and as such the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed . Hence, the present revision petition.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.