We heard learned counsels for the appellants – opposite parties and respondents – complainants, and perused the material on record.

2. C.C. No. 52 of 2011 Indu Sodhi vs. Emaar MGF Land Ltd.; C. C. No. 53 of 2011 Ravinder Kumar Sodhi vs. Emaar MGF Land Ltd.; C.C. No. 54 of 2011 M/s. Saurabh Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. Emaar MGF Land Ltd; and C.C. No. 62 of 2011 Malik Singh Kohli and Neha Sodhi Gaur vs. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. were accepted with costs by the State Commission vide its Order dated 11.01.2012.

3. The dispute relates to units / shops in ‘Central Plaza’ of ‘Mohali Hills’ project of the appellants – Emaar MGF Land Ltd.

4. In the complaint cases one preliminary objection (inter alia) raised by the opposite party – Emaar MGF Land Ltd. was that the complaints were not maintainable within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) (i) & (ii) of the Act 1986 and deserved to be dismissed on this ground alone (para 4 under preliminary objections of its reply before the State Commission).

5. The State Commission in its Order of 11.01.2012 dismissed this preliminary objection as below:

“9. In the written replies, filed by the opposite parties, it was pleaded that the complaint were not the consumers, a