Order Per D.N. Patel, J.: 1. This writ petition has been preferred challenging the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 104/2003 dated 27th October, 2004 as well as the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Appeal No. 3/2005 along with A/460/04 dated 15th July, 2005. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the original respondent was allotted house in question in the year 1967. Necessary documents were also executed on 26th June, 1967. The possession of house no. 2K/62 of Bariatu Housing Colony was also handed over to the original respondent on 4th July, 1967. The said document has been referred in the written statement filed by the petitioners before the Consumer Forum, which is at Serial no. 62. Similarly there are several documents which are referred by the petitioners, which have not been properly appreciated by the Consumer Forum as well as by the Consumer Commission and has given a direction to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the aforesaid house or to allot a fresh house to the respondent. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that once the possession was given in the year 1967, there is no question of giving possession of very same premises, again. Secondly after the year 1967, a complaint was filed by the original respondent in the year 2003 i.e. after 36 years. The complaint was filed by the respondent for the reason that vacant possession of the house in question was not given by the then Bihar State Housing Board. Some letters were also written in the year 1991 by the respondent i.e. after approximately period of 24 years and, thereafter, complaint was filed. Thirdly, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondent has given premises on rent to one Sri Rameshwar Lal Sharma, who filed Title Suit No. 119 of 2000 against the respondent and in that Title Suit, written statement was filed by the respondent, in which, he has admitted that the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 119 of 2000 was given premises on rent and he has not paid any rent. Thus, written statement filed by the respondent in Title Suit No. 119 of 2000 has also not been properly appreciated by the Consumer Forum as well as by the Consumer Commission. Lastly, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that one letter was written by the officer of the Housing Board on 18th July, 2000. The said document was in favour of the respondent, but, it appears that the said officer had committed an error and wrongly letter was written and, therefore, within couple of days, another letter was written by the very same officer on 3rd August, 2000 that the respondent had misguided the said officer of the Housing Board and in fact peaceful and vacant possession of the house in question was already given to the respondent in the year 1967. This letter has also not been properly appreciated by the Consumer Forum as well as by the Consumer Commission and, hence, the judgments and orders passed by the Consumer Forum as well as by the Consumer Commission deserve to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it is true that house in question was allotted by the then Bihar State Housing Board to the respondent, but, somebody was already staying in the said house and, therefore, possession of the house was not given to the respondent. Several letters had been written by the original respondent. First letter was written by the respondent in the year 1991. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that installment of house in question was paid by the respondent and full consideration was paid in the year 1987. Moreover, a letter was also written by the officer of the Housing Board in July 2000 inviting the respondent for taking over vacant possession of the house in question. These documents have been properly appreciated by the Consumer Forum as well as by the Consumer Commission and, hence, the direction was given by both the authorities below to the Jharkhand State Housing Board to allot a new house or to give peaceful and vacant possession of house no. 2K/62 of Bariatu Housing Colony to the respondent. No error has been committed by both the authorities below and, hence, this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court. 4. 2K/62 of Bariatu Housing Colony to the respondent. No error has been committed by both the authorities below and, hence, this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court. 4. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 104/2003 dated 27th October, 2004 as well as the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Appeal No.3/2005 along with A/460/04 dated 15th July, 2005 mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The erstwhile State of Bihar had allotted a residential unit to the original respondent on 4th July, 1967 upon execution of a document on 26th June, 1967 on the basis of allotment letter no. 2306 dated 29th April, 1966 for the house no. 2K/62 of Bariatu Housing Colony. The said document is referred in paragraph no. 4 of the written statement filed by the petitioners before the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 104/03. The said paragraph reads as under: “4. That the house no. 2K62 of Bariatu Housing Colony is allotted to complainant vide order no. 2306 dated 29.4.66 passed been executed on 26.6.67 and possession was also given to the complainant on 4.7.67. It is wrong to say of this complainant that possession of the said house has not been delivered to him. (Xerox copy of agreement and possession register (SL. No. 62) annexed hereto as Annexure-A & B).” (emphasis supplied) (ii) Looking to the aforesaid document, which has been reduced in writing refers that Sri Malchand Gupta, who is a first party to the document is hereby put in possession of the said house. Thus, possession of the house in question was already given to the original respondent in the year 1967. The genuineness of the said document is never disputed by the respondent (original complainant) before the Consumer Forum. Thus, the aforesaid document which is executed in writing and which is signed by the respondent dated 26th June, 1967 is not a fabricated document, at all and as stated in the said document, possession of the said house was given to Malchand Gupta (original complainant). Thus, the factum of giving possession of the property in question is proved by the petitioners. Thus, the factum of giving possession of the property in question is proved by the petitioners. (iii) It further appears from the documents on record before the Consumer Forum as well as the Consumer Commission that first time in the year 1991, a letter was written by the respondent (original complainant) disputing the grant of possession of the house in question. Thus it appears that after approximately 24 years from the year 1967, first time a dispute about possession of the house is raised. This silence for 24 long years goes against the respondent. No reasonable man would have maintained the silence for 24 long years, if the possession of the house in question is not given to him. We are of the opinion that the dispute raised by the respondent about the possession of the house in question is nothing, but, a afterthought. (iv) It further appears from the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that installment for the house in question was paid by the original respondent and whole consideration was paid, lastly in the year 1987. Thus if the respondent is giving money by way of equal monthly installment, then for 24 long years why he has remained silent about the possession of the house. We, therefore, disbelieve that the possession of the house was never given by the petitioners to the respondent. Both the authorities below have not appreciated this aspect of the matter that after the year 1967, first time objection was raised in the year 1991 i.e. after long lapse of 24 years of time. (v) It further appears that one Sri Rameshwar Lal Sharma, who was staying in the house in question which was allotted to the respondent, was staying in the house with the knowledge of the respondent. The said Rameshwar Lal Sharma filed Title Suit No. 119 of 2000 before the competent trial court, in which, respondent was a defendant. The respondent filed a written statement in Title Suit No. 119 of 2000. Paragraph no. 13 of the said written statement filed by the respondent (original defendant) reads as under: “13. That the plaintiff was a teacher in a private school where he worked for seven years and thereafter he took a job in a small shop of undergarment and thereafter he remained unemployed. He entered into the house as a lessee of Malchand Gupta. 13 of the said written statement filed by the respondent (original defendant) reads as under: “13. That the plaintiff was a teacher in a private school where he worked for seven years and thereafter he took a job in a small shop of undergarment and thereafter he remained unemployed. He entered into the house as a lessee of Malchand Gupta. He, however, did not pay rent to Malchand Gupta.” (emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid written statement filed by the respondent, it appears that Rameshwar Lal Sharma who was staying in the house in question was well within the knowledge of the original respondent. He was a lessee of the original respondent. There was a dispute between the said Rameshwar Lal Sharma and the respondent about nonpayment of rent. Cumulative effect of these facts has not been properly appreciated by the Consumer Forum as well as by the Consumer Commission. Thus it appears that because of some dispute between the tenant and allottee of the house, wrong representation was made by the respondent that the Housing Board has not given peaceful and vacant possession of the house and that too first time in the year 1991 after the allotment in the year 1967. (vi) It further appears from the documents on record before the Consumer Forum as well as before the Consumer Commission that a letter was written by the officer of the Housing Board on 18th July, 2000 inviting respondent to take vacant possession of the house in question. Too much reliance is placed by the respondent upon the said letter. It ought to be kept in mind by the Government that it has to take work from several employees few may be honest, few may be dishonest, few may be enthusiastic, few may be lethargic and there may also be combination of both that honest officer may be lethargic and dishonest officer may be enthusiastic. It appears that the letter, written by the Housing Board dated 18th July, 2000, is written by an officer who is full of ignorance, if not dishonest. It appears that the letter, written by the Housing Board dated 18th July, 2000, is written by an officer who is full of ignorance, if not dishonest. Nonetheless later on within couple of days, wisdom was prevailed upon the Housing Board and immediately another letter was written dated 3rd August, 2000 to the respondent that the respondent has misrepresented that fact before the Housing Board about not given possession of the house in question, but, the possession of the house in question was already given in the year 1967. This letter has also been referred as Annexure-D in the written statement filed by the petitioners before the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi. This document has not been properly appreciated by both the authorities below. Once the possession of the house in question is given in the year 1967, the respondent ought to retain the vacant possession. It is not a duty of the Housing Board to continuously maintaining the possession of the house. If the respondent has given the premises in question on rent to Rameshwar Lal Sharma, then it is a duty of the respondent to get the possession from the said Rameshwar Lal Sharma. (vii) It appears that the respondent was well aware about Rameshwar Lal Sharma, who was staying in his house. From the year 1967, the respondent was silent for several decades and for the first time in the year 2003 i.e. after approximately 36 long years, complaint was filed by the respondent before the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi. Even after the payment of the consideration amount to the Housing Board in the year 1987, as per the argument canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the respondent was silent for more than a decade. Thus, one letter written by an officer of the Jharkhand State Housing Board or Bihar State Housing Board, inadvertently, cannot be interpreted in isolation. The said letter should be read with another letter dated 3rd August, 2000, which is referred in the written statement filed by the petitioners as Annexure-D. Because of misrepresentation of the fact by the respondent, one letter dated 18th July, 2000 was written by the Engineer of Bihar State Housing Board and immediately within couple of days, error was rectified. There is retraction letter, written by the said officer immediately on 3rd August, 2000. There is retraction letter, written by the said officer immediately on 3rd August, 2000. (viii) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in the said written statement in Title Suit No. 119 of 2000, it has been mentioned that the Housing Board has never given possession of the house in question and, therefore, paragraph no. 13 cannot be interpreted in isolation. We have carefully gone through those paragraphs also. Nonetheless looking to paragraph no. 13, it appears that Rameshwar Lal Sharma was a lessee of the respondent. Moreover, there is nonpayment of rent. These two facts make it abundant clear that possession of the house in question was already given to the respondent by the erstwhile State of Bihar in the year 1967. For decades together, the respondent has never made any complaint and maintained silence and, therefore, once possession of the house in question was given in the year 1967, it ought to be retained by the respondent of his own. (ix) It further appears that possession register is also on record, wherein it is stated that the possession of the house in question was handed over to the respondent. The said document is at Serial no. 62, which is also referred in the written statement filed by the petitioners before the District Consumer Forum. Both the authorities below have not appreciated the aforesaid document on record. (x) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable as an appeal is tenable at law before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2012) 8 SCC 524 . As this matter has already been admitted in much earlier point of time, we are of the opinion that instead of relegating the parties to the efficacious alternative remedy, the matter should be decided by this Court. Moreover, it appears that the house in question was already allotted by the erstwhile State of Bihar in the year 1967, then Bihar State Housing Board came into existence and, thereafter, Jharkhand State Housing Board came into existence in the year 2000. 5. Moreover, it appears that the house in question was already allotted by the erstwhile State of Bihar in the year 1967, then Bihar State Housing Board came into existence and, thereafter, Jharkhand State Housing Board came into existence in the year 2000. 5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 104/2003 dated 27th October, 2004 as well as the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Appeal No. 3/2005 along with A/460/04 dated 15th July, 2005 are, hereby, quashed and set aside. Hence, this writ petition is, hereby, allowed.