IMPORTANT POINT
There cannot be two conflicting judgments by different two Fora.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The genesis and sequence of the instant revision petition is this. Sh. Raju Solanki of M/s. Suraj & Associates, OP, represented to Mr.Satishkumar Omprakash Sethi, the complainant, that the OP was going to develop a Society on a plot of land located at Plot No.193, Bhagwati Niwas, Jawahar Nagar, bearing CTS No.598.29 sq.mtrs., Goregaon (West), Mumbai – 400 062, situated at Village Taluka – Borevalli. The OP purchased the said plot of land from the legal heirs of the complainant. The OP did not pay the consideration for the said land/building to the complainant as his share.

2. Consequently, complainant filed a suit bearing No.1942/2011 against the OP before the City Civil Court, Mumbai. In the said Suit, ad-interim order was passed in favour of the complainant for not creating third-party interest by the OP, in the suit premises. In the year 2012, the said suit was decreed as per the consent terms entered into between the parties. The consent decree dated 04.04.2012 has been placed on record. In the consent decree, it was agreed between the parties that the complainant is a lawful owner of plot No.1 & 4, situated at Bhagwati Niwas, Jawahar Nagar, bearing CTS No.598.29 sq.mtrs., Taluka – Borivali, District Mumbai .

3. The above said consent terms were drawn on 06.03.2012, where, OP had agreed to enter into agreement for providing new premises bearing Nos. 21 & 24 in lieu of old premises bearing Nos. 1 & 4, located at Bhagwati Niwas, Jawahar Nagar, bearing CTS No.598.29 sq.mtrs., Goregaon Town. On 12.03.2012, agreement for providing alternative accommodation was entered into and executed before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances at Borivali, Mumbai. The complainant submits that as per the Agreement, the OP would provide permanent alternate accommodation on owner-basis and free of cost, namely, flat Nos. 21 & 24 of corporate area covering 400 sq.ft., each, located at 2nd floor, as shown in the floor plan. This was in lieu of surrendering the tenancy rights with respect to the flat Nos. 1 & 4, located at Bhagwati Niwas, Jawahar Nagar, bearing CTS No.598.29 sq.mtrs., Goregaon (West), Mumbai – 400 062, in favour of OP.

4. On 04.04.2012, the OP promised the complainant that it would follow all the norms and fulfill all the promises made with respect to the re-development. It also gave an undertaking in Clause 6 of the consent terms. Accordingly, the complainant was made to vacate the premises bearing flat Nos. 1 & 4, located at Bhagwati Niwas, mentioned above. OP also gave monthly rent amount in advance for 11 months and promised to pay increased rent amount by 10%, till new accommodation was handed over to the complainant. From March, 2012, OP started carrying out redevelopment activity at the said suit premises, firstly, by demolishing the existing structure and re-building the premises with a promise to provide alternate accommodation in the new premises in lieu of the old premises.

5. In July, 2014, the said suit premises was to be redeveloped and OP1 was liable to handover the possession to the complainant by first week of July, 2014. However, the complainant stopped paying rent amount to the OP since February, 2014 onwards. In April, 2014, the OP informed the complainant that he would not handover the possession of the premises Nos. 21 & 24 unless and until the alleged loss of Rs.70.00 lakhs is paid to him. The alleged said amount was incurred by the OP at the time of re-development of the project. He contended that he would receive the said amount by selling the above said flats or flat Nos. 13 & 14 which were to be handed over to the complainants 3 & 4 who were arrayed in the suit namely, Pradeep Omprakash Sethi & Harish Omprakash Sethi.

6. The grievance of the complainant is that it OP is not handing over the new premises in lieu of old premises which he had promised as per the consent decree dated 04.04.2012.

7. It is, however, surprising to note that instead of knocking at the doors of the civil cou