IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. R.S.A. No. 322 of 1999. Decided on: 16.3.2009. __________________________________________________ H.P. Housing Urban Development Authority… Appellant. Versus Smt. Kalpana. … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. J.R. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. B.K. Malhotra, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The trial Court after relying upon paragraph 3 of the hire- purchase tenancy agreement had come to the conclusion that the competent authority to take decision was the Chairman of the Board. Paragraph (3) of the hire-purchase agreement reads thus: “(3) The owner hereby agrees after the expiry of the hire-purchase period of transfer the said property to the hirer by executing conveyance deed with him in the prescribed form provided that he has paid all the dues of the owner and of public bodies, if any, prior to such execution. The hirer thereafter shall cease to be a tenant and become the owner of property subject to the provisions of the said conveyance deed. If any dispute or difference arises regarding interpretation of the wordings of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. said regulations or the agreement made thereunder or any decision taken or proposed to be taken in accordance with the said regulations or agreements, the Chairman shall take a decision and such decision shall be final and binding on the hirers.” However, the learned District Judge, Mandi though has up-held the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class (1) Mandi, however, he has relied upon/quoted paragraph 3 of the allotment letter dated 31.10.1987 (Ext. P-2). He was bound to take into consideration paragraph (3) of the hire- purchase agreement (Ext. P-3). The learned District Judge, Mandi has erred in law by not considering the terms and conditions mentioned in Ext. P-3, i.e. hire-purchase tenancy agreement. Accordingly, the regular second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi dated 24.2.1999 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned District Judge, Mandi to decide the appeal afresh on the basis of the paragraph (3) of the hire-purchase agreement (Ext. P- 3) within a period of two months from today. To avoid delay, the parties are directed to make themselves available before the learned District Judge, Mandi on 23.3.2009. The Registry is directed to send the records to the learned District Judge, Mandi immediately. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 16, 2009. (cr)