ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This Revision Petition arises out of Revision Petition against the order passed at appellate stage in execution proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant after payment of Rs. 4,90,000/- to the Petitioner on 8.8.93 for a duplex type house in Pratap vihar asked for the possession. Since it was not ready in time an arrangement was reached between the parties to allot house no. 9/61 in Vaishali Colony. Possession of the newly allotted house was given on 30.7.94. The Complainant immediately brought to the notice of the Petitioner several deficiencies, requesting them to remove these deficiencies, since nothing was forthcoming the Complainant moved the District Forum asking for several reliefs. The District Forum after hearing both the parties and before passing the order, appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the house and report the deficiencies with reference to the one’s reported by the Complainant in his complaint. Local Commissioner reported the cost or repairs to Rs. 78,000/-. The District Forum vide its order dated 13.6.96, directed the Petitioner to pay interest @ 18% on the amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- from 8.2.93 to 30.7.94, Rs. 10,0000/- as compensation and costs and to remove the dificiencies in the newly allotted house within two months of its orders.
3. On the basis of non-compliance of the order, the Complainant moved the District Forum for execution of its order. The District Forum after hearing both the parties and on being satisfied that repairs/work relating to removal of deficiencies has not been done, directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000/- by 5.5.97 to enable the complainant to undertake the work of repairs to the house. On revision filed against the order before the State Commission, it was dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-, hence the Revision Petition before us.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner, that even though the Local Commissioner had reported the cost of repairs to be Rs. 78,000/- their own estimate is Rs. 21,000/-. They wanted to carry out the said repairs. It is the complainant who did not let this work be carried out by not permitting the labour to work. Too much emphasis was laid on the Complainant being a Superintendent of Police.
5. It was argued by the Complainant that at no stage did he come in the way of the Petitioner during any work. He was got the work done as per orders of the District Forum in execution and this amount of Rs. 50,000/- be given to him with interest.
6. We have seen the material on record. The order passed by the District Forum on 13.6.96 became final. It is not in dispute that two months time was given to remove the deficiencies, cost of which was placed at Rs. 78,000/- by the Local Commissioner. This figure was not disputed. Be that as it may in spite of this, the District Forum wisely directed the Petitioner to remove the defects within two months at whatever cost to GDA. We are unable to understand the argument of the Petitioner that his labourers were not permitted to carry out the work of repairs. Where is the evidence on this point by way of affidavit of any labourer/contractor or any Engineer/Sub-Engineer on the subject?. Merely to state that the Complainant is an S.P. and he did not let the labourers carry out the repair work is not enough. In the absence of any evidence or proof by any means, we are unable to accept this argument. District Forum, in execution proceedings exercised its power and only partly monetised the cost or repairs estimated by the Local Commissioner of which there is no challenging on record escept GDA’s own estimate of Rs. 21,000/- for the same repairs. For eight years, after getting the possession, the Complainant is being deprived of a peaceful life, with the unholy hope on the part of the GDA to let the Complainant live in an otherwise unliveable house and than (sic) reason to delay the repairs on unsupported/unsubstantiated grounds. We see not merit in this Revision Petition and is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-