Representative suit maintainable despite separate causes of action; belated housing charges demand under lease held unsustainable.
A belated additional demand for development charges, amenities and buildings under the lease was unsustainable because the Board was required to finalise those amounts within three years of allotment and delayed the calculation for about a decade without justification. A separate demand for enhanced land acquisition compensation was permissible. A representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was maintainable because the allottees shared the same interest and common grievance under the housing scheme, and separate causes of action did not by themselves bar representative proceedings. The challenge to maintainability was rejected and the representative suit was upheld.
Issues: (i) Whether the Housing Board could validly make a belated additional demand for development charges, cost of amenities and buildings under the lease terms. (ii) Whether a representative suit under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable where the allottees had separate demands and individual causes of action.
Issue (i): Whether the Housing Board could validly make a belated additional demand for development charges, cost of amenities and buildings under the lease terms.
Analysis: The lease required the Board to determine the final amount towards development charges, amenities and buildings within three years from allotment. The Board delayed the final calculation for about a decade without justification. The contractual language did not support a different construction, and the delay defeated the agreed time-frame for fixation of the final price. The Board was, however, entitled to make a fresh additional demand in respect of enhancement in compensation for acquired land.
Conclusion: The belated demand for development charges, cost of amenities and buildings was not sustainable, while a demand relating to enhanced land acquisition compensation could be made separately.
Issue (ii): Whether a representative suit under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable where the allottees had separate demands and individual causes of action.
Analysis: The purpose of Order 1, Rule 8 is to avoid multiplicity of litigation where numerous persons have the same interest. The rule does not require that all represented persons must have the same cause of action. Here, all allotments arose under the same housing scheme, the relevant facts were common, and the challenge to the impugned demand raised a common grievance affecting the class represented by the plaintiff. Separate causes of action, by themselves, did not bar the representative procedure.
Conclusion: The representative suit was maintainable under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the challenge to maintainability was rejected, and the respondent's representative suit was upheld for the low-income group covered by the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: A representative suit is maintainable where the persons represented share the same interest and common grievance, even if their individual causes of action differ, and the provision is to be construed so as to prevent multiplicity of litigation.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
