Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This is an appeal against the order dated 19.6.1999 passed by the District Forum, Nainital whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed on the ground that this is not a consumer dispute.

2. The complainant has approached the Forum with a specific case that he has taken a lease for 3 years. He has deposited the lease money of Rs. 1,32,800/- and has also paid stamp duty of Rs. 16,600/- but the complainant was asked to vacate the premises before the expiry of 3 years. He has not been refunded his balance amount of Rs. 22,133.33 and stamp duty of Rs. 2,766.66. In spite of reminders, the opposite party did not hear, hence he filed the complaint.

3. The learned Forum has held that this is not a consumer dispute and has dismissed the complaint, against which order the present appeal has been filed.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The matter is in respect of lease of immovable property. As a Consumer Fora we are authorised to take up cases of goods and hiring of services. Giving of lease is neither sale of goods nor hiring of services. It is clear that the dispute relates to a contract in respect of immovable property. The cases of immovable property are not within our jurisdiction. As regards there was a contract between the parties. There has been a breach of the contract and it is settled principle of law that the case for breach of contract is not entertainable in District Forum. It shall be decided by the Civil Courts only. In the ruling reported in Anil Kumar v. Vipro G.E., Medical System Ltd., II (1995) CPJ 300, Rajasthan, where there was a contract for supply of machine. The machine was not supplied and money was not refunded. It was held that it is not a consumer dispute. In the ruling reported in II (1993) CPJ 1029 Thiru Dharman & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, the Madras State Commission has held:

“The leases in these cases are, therefore, leases of immovable property as a benefit arising from land. The lessees in these cases are, therefore, lessor of immovable property coming within the ambit of the Transfer of Property Act and the rights and liabilities of parties are governed by Section 108 of the said Act. It has been held by this Commission as well as by the National Commission that leases of immovable property do not come within the purview of the Act. The complaints are not, therefore, maintainable.”

The same view has been propounded in the ruling reported in III (2000) CPJ 295, Delhi Development Authority v. A.V. Raghavan. This case is not entertainable by Consumer Foras for two reasons. Firstly the case of breach of contract is not a consumer dispute. Secondly lease rights of immovable property and any breach committed in respect thereof or any damages or refund arising out of said breach is not a consumer dispute.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant referred the ruling reported in 2004 (1) CPR 459, The General Manager Ditt. Industries v. Smt. Saraswathi. In this ruling it was decided that a Government department ought to have behaved more responsibly towards the citizen and should not have come before the Forum with the allegation that the complainant is not a consumer. If the complainant is entitled to refund of his amount, he must get it but if the Forum has got no jurisdiction, we do not feel that any direction should be given to the State Government not to take this plea of jurisdiction, if the Forum has got no jurisdiction. The Government department is also free to take such plea like any other ordinary litigant. Although we cannot appreicate that if any amount of the complainant is due, it should not be refunded to him but we are sorry it being not a consumer dispute, we cannot give any relief to the complainant.

6. A case decided by us reported in I (2004) CPJ 226=2004 (1) CPR 337, Aranya Electricals and Sound Services v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was also referred, in which we have decided that exi