Prabha Rani v. Housing Board, Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 Aug 2010
- Bench
- PERMOD KOHLI
Outcome
Allowed
In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 s. 51(1)
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Flat bearing No.565-F, measuring 32.39 Sqm. in LIG category, situated in Sector-6, Panipat, was allotted to the petitioner vide order No.1487 dated 12.05.1987 on the basis of Hire-Purchase Agreement. An agreement to this effect was also executed between the petitioner and the respondents. The tentative costs of the flat was fixed at Rs.1,18,100/- which was to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs.1210/- within a period of 13 years. It is stated that the petitioner has paid about 90 per cent of the total cost and could not deposit the monthly instalment of the house since October, 2007. The respondents have ordered the ejectment of the petitioner vide letter dated 15.02.2008 (Annexure P-1) under Section 51 (1) of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that the same has been passed without affording any opportunity of being heard to her or even without putting the petitioner to notice for payment of the outstanding dues, if any. The petitioner claims to have deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- CWP No.6049 of 2009 - 2 - on 31.03.2008 after the passing of the impugned order which amount is lying in the account of the respondent-Banker, namely, Punjab National Bank, New Subzi Mandi Branch, Panipat. When the petitioner came to know about the passing of the impugned order, he preferred an appeal before respondent No.3 which also stand rejected vide order dated
Operative part
07.01.2009. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has filed this petition seeking to challenge the order dated 15.02.2008 (Annexure P-1), order dated 13.03.2008 (Annexure P-2) and the order dated 07.01.2009 (Annexure P-6). In the reply it is admitted that the petitioner had paid the instalments upto September, 2007, but the instalments after October, 2007 have not been paid. It is stated that on account of non-payment of the instalments from the period aforesaid, the impugned orders have been passed. Mr.Ashwani Talwar was asked to seek instructions from the respondents as to whether the flat allotted to the petitioner is still lying vacant or the same has been allotted to some other person. He has reported that the flat bearing No.565-F of LIG category in Sector-6, Panipat, is still lying vacant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the interest and the penalty that may be imposed by the respondents for the delayed payment of the instalments. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has paid about 90 per cent of the total cost of the flat, it is deemed appropriate that the flat which is lying vacant is allowed to be retained with the petitioner. CWP No.6049 of 2009 - 3 - In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.02.2008 (Annexure P-1), order dated 13.03.2008 (Annexure P-2) and the order dated 07.01.2009 (Annexure P-6) are hereby quashed. The respondents shall communicate the amount payable by the petitioner along with interest and the penalty etc. within a period of two weeks. On receipt of the communication of the amount, the petitioner shall deposit the same within a period of two weeks thereafter. On failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount within the time stipulated above, the order of eviction shall stand revived.
10.08.2010 BLS (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 — s. 51(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 10 Aug 2010. The bench was PERMOD KOHLI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.