In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 03/04/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR
Review Application No.145 of 2004
1. The Chairman and
Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Nandanam, Chennai 35.
2. The Executive Engineer &
Administrative Officer
Tirunelveli Housing Unit
E.B. Colony
Tirunelveli 627 011.
.. Applicants
-vs-
K.V. Krishnan .. Respondent
Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 read with Section
114 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order of the Division Bench
dated 21.10.2003 made in W.A.No.2355 of 2001.
!For applicants : Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy
Addl. Advocate General
for Mr. D. Veerasekaran
^For respondent : Mr. K.K. Murralitharan
..
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.)
Aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2003 made in Writ Appeal
No.2355 of 2001, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has filed the above review
application.
2. Heard Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Additional
Advocate General for the review applicants and Mr. K.K. Murralitharan,
learned counsel for the respondent.
3. In the light of the order to be passed hereunder, we are
of the view that it is unnecessary to refer the factual details as stated by
the review applicants as well as the respondents.
4. The only grievance of the review applicants as seen from
the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General is that, though the
allottees are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement / allotment
order, in view of the direct 19 of the Division Bench order, they are not in a
position to claim interest as per the terms of the agreement. We verified the
order of the Division Bench dated 21.10.2003 made in Writ Appeal No.2355 of
2001. The Division Bench has issued the follow ing direction in paragraph 19
of its order,
“19. Having regard to these facts, the Housing Board is directed to execute
the sale deed in favour of the applicant after collecting from him the sum of
Rs.11,200/- being the amount of interest at the rate of 14% on the sum of
Rs.80,000/- from 30.06.87 to 12.7.88 together with interest thereon at 8% from
1.6.2001 till the date of payment. ”
5. Though according to the learned Additional Advocate
General, the amounts mentioned above are not in terms of the agreement, in
view of the fact that the appellant before the Division Bench / respondent
herein has paid interest as per the and the Housing Board has also executed
sale deed several years ago, we are not inclined to disturb or alter the
direction mentioned therein at this juncture. However, as rightly pointed out
by the learned Additional Advocate General, the said direction is confined to
the said particular allottee. As a matter of fact paragraph 19 of the order
itself proceeds, “having regard to these facts, …” . In such circumstances,
we are of the view that the direction issued therein is to be confined to the
parti es to the said proceedings and for other cases, the interest has to be
worked out / calculated as per the terms and conditions agreed to by both
parties, viz., allottee and the Houarding Board.
With the above clarification, the review application is
closed. No costs.
kh