A. VENUGOPAL versus TELANGANA HOUSING BOARD & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1056 · Decided: 04-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1056
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1056
1056
A. VENUGOPAL
v.
TELANGANA HOUSING BOARD & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2022)
APRIL 4, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Telangana Housing Board Act, 1956 – Allotment of House –
Rental basis – Discrepancy in Name – Appellant’s grandfather was
allotted a house by the then Andhra Pradesh Housing Board in
1968 on rental basis – After his death, father of appellant gave a
representation seeking transfer of the allotment in his name – At the
time when the allotment was transferred, a small discrepancy
happened that his father wrote his grandfather’s name – After his
father’s death, the appellant applied for the transfer of the house
in his name – It was rejected, on account of the discrepancies in the
name of the appellant’s grandfather – Writ petition – The Single
Judge while allowing the writ petition found that after having entered
into a hire purchase agreement with the appellant’s father way back
in October, 1978 and after having received all the instalments due
from him fully, it was not proper on the part of the Housing Board
to take advantage of the illiteracy of the father and grandfather of
the appellant – The Division Bench reversed the judgment on the
ground that the discrepancy was sufficient justification for the
Housing Board to conclude that a fraud was being played upon
them – On appeal, held: Right from the year 1968, the house was in
the possession and enjoyment of the appellant’s family – In the year
1968, there was a discrepancy regarding the initial in name – After
his grandfather’s death in 1969, the Housing Board accepted
appellant’s father as his son and entered into a tenancy agreement
– Appellant’s father completed all his obligations under the lease-
cum-sale agreement and also died in 1992 – No dispute was raised
by the Housing Board for a more than 2 decades – Therefore, to
take advantage of the discrepancies with which the Housing Board
and the original allottee and his legal heirs having co-existed for 5
decades, is completely unfair – Unfortunately, the Division Bench
treated even a man who was dead 30 years ago as having
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1057
perpetrated fraud, by a skewed logic – The judgment of the Division
Bench is set aside and the judgment of the Single Judge of the High
Court is restored.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.2703 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2019 of the High Court
for State of Telangana in Writ Appeal No.654 of 2019.
G. Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj Mahendran, P. Shankar, Advs. for
the Appellant.
V. Sridhar Reddy, Abhijit Sengupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court for the State of Telangana, reversing the judgment of the learned
Single Judge and thereby rejecting his prayer for the transfer and
registration of a house allotted by the first respondent herein in favour of
his grandfather, the original writ petitioner has come up with the above
appeal.
3. The appellant herein filed a writ petition contending inter alia
(i) that his grandfather by name A. Venkaiah @ Hanumaiah, S/o Balaiah
was allotted a house by the then Andhra Pradesh Housing Board on
17.05.1968, on rental basis; (ii) that his grandfather died on 16.09.1969,
leaving behind him surviving, his father A. Shankaraiah; (iii) that his
father Shankaraiah gave a representation on 16.12.1969 seeking transfer
of the allotment in his name; (iv) that after demanding certain certificates
from his father, the Housing Board transferred the allotment in favour of
his father by the proceeding dated 14.04.1970; (v) that at the time when
the allotment was transferred, a small discrepancy happened when his
father wrote his grandfather’s name; (vi) that in October, 1977 the
Housing Board offered the house for outright sale or hire purchase; (vii)
that his father opted for hire purchase; (viii) that thereafter his father
started paying the EMI regularly; (ix) that all the instalments payable by
his father, were duly and promptly paid and the entire payment schedule
was completed by March, 1992; (x) that unfortunately his father died on
A. VENUGOPAL v. TELANGANA HOUSING BOARD & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
20.04.1992; (xi) that thereafter the appellant applied for the transfer of
the house in his name, but a dispute arose between t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.