IMPORTANT POINT
Seller justified in forfeiting amount as per relevant clause, since earnest money primarily a security for due performance of agreement, andconsequently seller entitled to forfeit entire deposit.

J. M. Malik, Presiding Member—There is a delay of 134 days in filing the present Revision Petition. According to the complainant his appeal was dismissed on 17.09.2014. His Advocate got the copy from the Registry on 10.11.2014. The petitioner was in two minds to file the Revision Petition or a Civil Suit against the builder. His financial condition was also bad. The petitioner is a physically handicapped person, belongs to Scheduled Caste. He approached many advocates to file the Revision Petition. He could not pay fee to his Advocate Sh. Nagaraj Hoskeri. He contacted Mr. Gurudatt Anolekar of Supreme Court. He was asked to translate the Marathi papers into English language. Ultimately, his case was argued by Advocate Sh. Nagaraj Hoskeri.

2. All these excuses have left no impression upon us. The petitioner did not give even a single solid ground. The case is barred by time. This fact neatly dovetails by various authorities reported in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 4 CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, (2009) 1 CLT 188 (SC) : 2013 (4) CPR 785 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012] 1 SCR 104 : 2013 (3) CPR 622 (SC) and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 SC 1221.

3. The latest view was taken by the Apex Court in the case “Sanjay Sidgonda Patl Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.”, decided by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013, upholding the order of this Commission wherein delay of 13 days was not condoned.

4. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 33792 of 2013 in Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Anr. V. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, decided on 19.11.2013, upholding the order of this Commission where 77 days delay was not condoned and again delay of 78 days was not condoned in the case reported in M/s Ambadi Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.07.2013.

5. Consequently, the case is hopelessly barred by time.

6. Now, we turn to the merits of this case. This is an admitted fact that the complainant/petitioner booked a flat on 17.01.2008 by paying earnest money in the sum of Rs.70,000/-. A registered agreement was executed on 28.01.2008. The balance amount in the sum of Rs.4,34,030/- was to be paid on 31.01.2008, as is apparent from the agreement, entered into between the parties, the Sr. No. 1 to 14 have been scorned off and Sr. No. 15, runs as follows:-

15. On Possession of Flat/on or before

31.01.08 Rs.4,34,030/- =(Dues)

————————————————

Total Rs.5,04,030/-

————————————————

7. The possession was to be delivered within three days from the date of execution of agreement. Both the Fora below have decided the case against the Complainant/petitioner. The complainant himself mentions in para No. 3 of his complaint:-

“3. Xxxxxx The complainant states that at the time of execution of the said agreement, the complainant had paid Rs.70,000/- as initial payment and the total agreed consideration was Rs.5,04,030/- and the remaining payment was to be made at the time of possession of the flat”.

8. It is clear that the petitioner waddled out of the commitments and did not pay the rest of the amount. The agreement in Clause No. 11, clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentions:-

“11. xxxxxxx PROVIDED further that upon termination of the agreement as aforesaid the Builders shall forfeit the earnest money paid by the Purchasers and refund to the purchasers the balance installments of sale price of the said premises (if any) xxxxxx.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of admission of this case, vehemently argued that as a matter of fact the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towar