• Remedy for Jharkhand state housing board bylaw violation

My father purchased a house in 1974 from Jharkhand state housing board,Ranch earlier it was Bihar state housing board in harmu housing colony Ranchi.. He had been transfered to kargali coal field then he kept one driver Mukhtar singh to take care of his house and pay 200/- as a maintenance. 
2) when my father want to shift his family to ranchi at his purchased house before retirement asked the driver to vacant the house.The driver mukhtar singh told that he has already applied for house in the same housing board and soon he will be alloted one house at harmu housing colony.
3) mukhtar singh (driver) got the allotment of house LS88 in the year 1991, he told my father that i have already been alloted LS-88, soon i will shift and vacate the house.
4) as the days passed by driver denied to vaccate the house of my father and also refused to meet and informed through his sons jhulan and baban that we will not vacate what ever you wana do u can do.
5) My father is a simple man he went to housing board and requested for help, but the housing board Executive Engineer refused.
6) the case was filled in High court where Housing Board was also a party,In the High court the advocate of housing board said that the house belongs to my father akhouri anand prakash, and once the house had been delivered to him, he may seek any legal recourse to get the house vacated. 
7) Again the Case was filed in Civil Court eviction case, The case was delayed and lingered upto 15 years and then final decision was ordered to get the house vacated from the sons of late Mukhtar singh (mukhtar singh to whom my father had given house as a care taker) and hand over it to Mr akhouri anand prakash. 
8) The housing board now again entered in the seen by the persuation and considerations by the sons of the opponent and raised the question that (a)why  the housing board was not been made party to the case in civil court (b) akhouri anand prakash had violated the bylaws of housing board and why not the allotment of house should be cancelled.
Fallacies in our part:
1) My father had been convinced by the lawyer to proceed in the ground of personal necessity showing that it has been given to mukhtar singh on monthly rent of Rs 200/-. Truth is that he was a driver and he has not paid even a single rupee as a rent or maintenance but it was shown by the advocate as rent so that the house can be vacated in fast manner and in easy way.
2) The registration of the house has not been done till date after several letter given to the housing board regarding the final registraion. 
3) Present situation the housing board has cancelled the allotment on the ground that (a) the house has been given on rent that is the violation of bylawys of housing board.
INTERESTING FACTS:
1) the driver Mukhtar singh to whom the house was given as a care taker has died, his sons jhulan and baban were capturing the  house.
2) already mukhtar singh had been alloted house by the same housing board house no LS88 , they let their house LS88 on rent and occupying our house.
We have challenged against the cancellation letter of the house of Housing Board at High Court.
Please suggest us remedy so that i can get my father house back. Presently we are residing on rent.
Yours faithfully
Akhouri Avinash Prakash
mob:-9386294014
mail id:-avinashakhouri1984@gmail.com
Asked 2 years ago in Property Law from Ranchi, Jharkhand
1. Making of housing boards as party to the case is not necessary.
2. You Are already in right course by challenging the cancelling allotment by housing board.
3. Lodge complaint to cancel the allotment of your occupiers who has similarly given the flat on rent.
4. it was great mistake on your part to mention rent in the suit The driver should have been sued as licensee than a tenant.
Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
5248 Answers
54 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
1) the biggest mistake was made by your lawyer when he said driver was tenant  and paying monthly  rent of Rs 200 .  

2) you cannot sub let the house or give the premises on rent in violation of the rules of housing board . 

3) although you won the civil suit and driver legal heirs were directed to vacate the premises given on rent you have lost the war as allotment has been cancelled . 

4) you have challenged order of HB cancelling the allotment in HC . in court you should take the plea that driver was mere caretaker of the house and Rs 200 was paid as maintenance for the house and not rent . the lawyer has inadvertently mentioned maintenance amount of Rs 200 paid to him as rent 

5) in addition you should take the plea that driver has already got alternative accommodation alloted to him by HB and he has given the said house on rent in violation of rules and yet HB has not taken any action against the driver or his legal heirs but your father is being made a space goat and is being unnecessarily victimised
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23386 Answers
1229 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. Going initially to High Court was not the right move. The HC could not have intervened unless the remedies in the lower court were not exhausted.

2. In the civil court your lawyer acted in a fallacious manner by proceeding on the ground of personal necessity. By proceeding on the ground of personal necessity your father declared himself as a violator of the law in as much the sub lease could not have been made except with the consent of the lessor.

3. Cancellation of allotment by the housing board has rendered the judgment of the civil court infructuous.

4. You are on the right path by challenging the cancellation of allotment in the High Court. You should present the true facts to the High Court unlike what you did in the lower court if you want to stand any chance to get a favourable judgment.

5. The sons of the deceased driver can carry the legal battle ahead in the High Court.
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18259 Answers
450 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Hi,
1. continue the case in the high court and check with your advocate whether you are taking a plea that you were wrongly stated the fact as you were misguided and mislead by the concerned lawyer in the civil court.

2.  The house board's conclusion that it was not made a party in the suit so violated the terms and disqualified you from holding the premise is challengeable and this can get you a favorable order in terms of getting back your house . The action of the housing board is against your interest and the so called bye-laws has to be challenged.
3. If the bye-law of the housing board is  infringing your fundamental right the high court has the power to make a rule to ensure your right.
Thresiamma G. Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1316 Answers
85 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1) blame it on your lawyer . mention that based on legal advice plea was taken that rent of Rs 200 was paid by caretaker . 

2) you can also mention that caretaker family has already been alloted another house by the HB 

3)HB was not made  party to the eviction suit as  HB had in proceedings before HC taken the plea that your father as owner of house could take legal recourse to recover the house and that HB was fully aware of suit filed for eviction of the caretaker . 

4) further fact that you dont have any other house to stay as you are living in rented house should also be pleaded to stay cancellation of allotment by the HC
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23386 Answers
1229 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. The housing board is not needed to be made a party in your case filed before the civil court for vacating the driver,

2. You have made a blunder by accepting under affidavit that you had let out the premise to the driver which is illegal and calls for cancellation of the allotment. The housing board has exqactly done what opportunity you had provided to them,

3. You have already filed an application challenging the said cancellation. What ground did you shown?

4. Lodge a complaint before the said housing board alleging letting out the allotted house of the driver by his sons and put this fact before the High Court alleging that your allotment has been cancelled under influence as it is not done for others.
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12143 Answers
233 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. It has become difficult for you now to deny having given the house on rent which your father had affirned under affidavit,

2. In any case you have challenged the cancellation of the allotment by the HB,

3. You just pray that you have been discreminated from others being influenced by the said illegal occupants of your house as their allotment has not been cancelled though they have also let out their allotted house,

4. It will be helpful if you can collect evidence of more such cases where the allotted houses have been let out by the allottes but the HB has not cancelled their allotments even after being informed about such letting out of the allotted house.
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12143 Answers
233 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. You have already moved the High Court, which is the right decision. So continue your case therein. If the HC rules against you then you may carry the matter to the Supreme Court of India.

2. It may be mentioned that you cannot take a stand contrary to what you took in the lower court.
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18259 Answers
450 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Property Lawyers

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14161 Answers
128 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23386 Answers
1229 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18259 Answers
450 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12143 Answers
233 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
5248 Answers
54 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2792 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Atulay Nehra
Advocate, Noida
444 Answers
15 Consultations
4.7 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
873 Answers
43 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1916 Answers
19 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
S J Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1954 Answers
66 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0