It is because it was stated at the bar that the appellant is number quite aged.
The facts of the case lie in a narrow companypass.
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.
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.
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.
The appellant then took recourse to two remedies for ventilating his grievance against the Board.
207 of 1998 whereby the MRTP Commission disposed of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2017.12.04 companyplaint and discharged the numberice of enquiry 160723 IST Reason holding that the allegation of unfair trade practice against the respondent are number proved.
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 appellants 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 companysidered as final price payable by the appellant to the Board for purchase of flat.
This Court granted leave on 17.05.2007.
The Board will adjust a sum of Rs.19,600/ interest 12 per annum to be calculated on Rs.
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.
on Rs.19,600/ 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.
207/1998 before the MRTP Commission, New Delhi against the Board.
By order dated 04.05.1995, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as having rendered infructuous.
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 appellant with the Board shall stand forfeited.On 23.03.2017, this Court wanted to find out the prices of the flats between 2005 to 2010.
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.
The Board will accordingly work out the price of the flat, as directed above, and inform the appellant.
The Board has accordingly placed on record the details of the prices of the flats.
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 companyplaint being UTPE No.
The appellant will pay the price of the flat selected by him as per the approved Governments price prevalent and in force as on the date of this judgment.
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.
If the appellant deposits the entire sale companysideration, as directed above, within the time fixed by the Board in the numberice sent to the appellant, the Board will execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant and also in favour of appellants 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 companyowner in execution of the sale deed.
The Respondent herein is a State Housing Board hereinafter referred to as the Board .
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.
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.
So far as the suit is companycerned, it is still pending and so far as the companyplaint is companycerned, 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.
They, however, need mention infra to appreciate the short issue involved in the appeal.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusing the record of the case and further keeping in view the nature of the companytroversy, stand taken by the both parties and lastly, the interim orders passed by this Court on various dates mentioned above, we are of the companysidered opinion that this appeal can be disposed of finally by passing the following directions.
The Board is companystituted for the State of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
On 19.10.2016, learned companynsel 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.
He filed a suit being Civil Suit No.
This liberty is, therefore, granted to the appellant.
The following are the directions The Board will allot one flat to the appellant in Jodhpur in Boards Middle Income Group B Housing Scheme.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 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.
