1

   NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2832  OF 2007     

Daulat Singh Rathore    ...Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Rajasthan Housing Board       ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and  order  dated  20.02.2006  passed  by  the

Monopolies  and  Restrictive  Trade  Practices

Commission,  New Delhi  (hereinafter referred to as

“MRTP  Commission”)  in  UTPE  No.  207  of  1998

whereby  the  MRTP  Commission  disposed  of  the

complaint  and  discharged  the  notice  of  enquiry

2

holding that the allegation of unfair trade practice

against the respondent are not proved.

2) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

They, however, need mention infra to appreciate the

short issue involved in the appeal.

3) The  Respondent  herein  is  a  State  Housing

Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"). The

Board  is  constituted  for  the  State  of  Rajasthan

under  the  Rajasthan  Housing  Board  Act,  1970

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act").  

4) Pursuant  to  the  Schemes  introduced  by  the

Board for sale of different types of Houses/flats in

the city of Jodhpur, the Board invited applications

from public  at  large  in  the  year  1982 for  sale  of

different categories of the houses/flats.

5) The  appellant  made  an  application  on

27.12.1982  (Annexure-P-1)  to  the  Board  for

allotment  of  one  flat  to  him at  Jodhpur  under  a

Scheme called, Middle Income Group "B" category.

3

On 30.05.1983,  the  appellant  deposited a  sum of

Rs.4,600/-  as  registration  amount  and  then

deposited  a  sum  of  Rs.15,000/-   on  18.09.1993

being first instalment.  

6) Thereafter,  there  arose  disputes  between the

appellant and the Board for sale of the flat which, in

the first instance, led to filing of the petition being

Writ Petition No.4707/1993 by the appellant in the

High  Court  of  Rajasthan  at  Jodhpur.   By  order

dated  04.05.1995,  the  High  Court  dismissed  the

writ petition as having rendered infructuous.  

7) The  appellant  then  took  recourse  to  two

remedies  for  ventilating  his  grievance  against  the

Board. He filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 23/2001

in the  Court  of  ADJ(I)  at  Jodhpur  on 02.07.2001

challenging  therein  the  actions  of  the  Board  and

simultaneously  filed  a  complaint  being  UTPE  No.

207/1998   before  the  MRTP  Commission,   New

Delhi against the Board.

4

8) So  far  as  the  suit  is  concerned,  it  is  still

pending and so far as the complaint is concerned, it

was  dismissed  by  the  MRTP  Commission  by

impugned  order  dated  20.02.2006  giving  rise  to

filing of this appeal by way of special leave by the

appellant in this Court.   This Court granted leave

on 17.05.2007.  

9) On  11.08.2016,  this  Court  recorded  in  the

proceeding that the appellant has given a proposal

to  the  Board  for  reconsideration  of  his  case  for

allotment of the flat. This Court observed that the

Board should look into the appellant's proposal with

objectivity  and  call  the  appellant  personally  to

resolve the dispute out of the Court. On 19.10.2016,

learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  made  a

statement that the Board has decided to allot one

flat  to  the  appellant  and  the  details  of  the  same

would  be  placed  on  record  within  2  weeks.  On

23.03.2017, this Court wanted to find out the prices

5

of the flats between 2005 to 2010. The Board has

accordingly  placed  on  record  the  details  of  the

prices of the flats.

10) It is in the light of these background facts, the

question arises as to what order needs to be passed

for the disposal of the appeal.

11) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusing the record of the case and

further  keeping  in  view  the  nature  of  the

controversy,  stand taken by  the  both parties  and

lastly, the interim orders passed by this Court on

various  dates  mentioned  above,  we  are  of  the

considered opinion that this appeal can be disposed

of finally by passing the following directions.  

12) In  our  opinion,  the  directions  given

hereinbelow would balance the equities between the

parties and also safeguard their interest in relation

to the subject matter of  the appeal.  The following

are the directions:

6

(i) The Board will  allot one flat to the

appellant  in  Jodhpur  in  Board's  Middle

Income Group “B” Housing Scheme.  

(ii) The appellant  will  pay the  price  of

the  flat  selected  by  him  as  per  the

approved  Government's  price  prevalent

and  in  force  as  on  the  date  of  this

judgment.  

(iii) The  Board  will  adjust  a  sum  of

Rs.19,600/- + interest @12% per annum

to be  calculated on Rs.  19,600/-   from

the date of its payment by the appellant

to the Board till the date of execution of

sale  deed  by  the  Board  in  appellant’s

favour  from  the  total  price  and  after

giving  adjustment  of  the  said  amount,

i.e.,(principal  amount  Rs.19,600/-  and

interest) the balance would be considered

as final price payable by the appellant to

the Board for purchase of flat.  

(iv) In  other  words,  the  appellant  will

pay a total price of the flat to the Board

after deducting Rs.19,600/-  + interest to

be calculated @ 12 % p.a. on Rs.19,600/-

7

from the date the said payment was made

by the appellant to the Board till the date

of execution of sale deed of the flat.

(v) The Board will accordingly work out

the  price  of  the  flat,  as  directed  above,

and inform the appellant.

(vi) If  the  appellant  deposits  the  entire

sale  consideration,  as  directed  above,

within the time fixed by the Board in the

notice  sent  to  the  appellant,  the  Board

will execute the sale deed in favour of the

appellant and also in favour of appellant's

first blood relation jointly along with the

appellant,  in  case,  the  appellant

expresses  his  wish  to  allow  any  of  his

blood  relation  to  join  with  him  as

co-owner in execution of the sale deed. It

is because it was stated at the bar that

the  appellant  is  now  quite  aged.  This

liberty  is,  therefore,  granted  to  the

appellant.  

(vii) If the appellant fails to pay the price

within the time fixed by the Board then a

sum  of  Rs.19,600/-  deposited  by  the

8

appellant  with  the  Board  shall  stand

forfeited.

(viii) Let  all  the  formalities,  as  directed

above,  be  completed  within  6  months

from the date of receipt of this judgment

by the parties under intimation to both as

an  outer  limit  to  give  quietus  to  this

litigation  with  no  claim  of  any  kind

surviving  against  both  the  parties  for

future.

13) In  view  of  foregoing  directions,  we  do  not

consider  it  necessary  to  examine  the  legal  issues

arising in the case.

14) The appeal stands disposed of finally.

                         …...……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

 ………...................................J.   [NAVIN SINHA]

New Delhi; December 04, 2017