We heard the learned counsels for the revisionist – complainant and the respondent no. 1 – opposite party no. 1, and perused the material on record.

2. Brief facts, shorn of unnecessary detail, are that the deceased husband of the revisionist –complainant was a monthly tenant and carrying out business under the name and style of ‘Durga Diagnostic Centre’ in the land and premises of the respondents no.2 to 4 – opposite parties no. 2 to 4.

The respondents no. 2 to 4 – opposite parties no. 2 to 4, the owners of the land, entered into an agreement with and empowered respondent no. 1 – opposite party no.1, a promoter-cum-developer, to construct a multi –storeyed building on their land.

Prior to vacating and demolishing of the portion occupied by the complainant’s husband in the land and premises, an agreement was executed by the complainant’s husband (since deceased) with the respondent no. 1 – opposite party no. 1 and with the respondents no. 2 to 4 – opposite parties no. 2 to 4 to allot a commercial space of 400 sq. ft. in the basement of the newly–constructed building. He paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque.

The contention of the complainant was that the agreed portion of the