The court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction in determining the forum's authority to entertain a complaint and highlighted the significance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in seeking relief.

ORDER

K.S. Chaudhari, (P.M) - Complainants filed complaint against OP along with I.A. No. 8410 of 2014 for grant of stay and submitted that complainants owner of one acre land entered into an agreement on 28.2.2007 with OP builder to develop land and as per agreement, 45% of the total super built area was to be given to complainants and 55% was to be retained by OP. It was further submitted that OP misused his dominant position and allotted scattered, unviable and undesired portions to the complainants which were left over after selling of a substantial portion to the third parties, so, OP may be restrained from creating any third parties interest till pendency of complaint. OP filed reply and submitted that dispute raised by complainant pertains to commercial complex; hence, this Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was further submitted that office area of 43191 sq. ft. and retail area of 2616 sq. ft. has been allotted to the complainants vide letter dated 10.7.2012 which has been acknowledged by complainants vide letters dated 12.7.2012 and 17.7.2012 and this area has been allotted in pursuance to letters of complainants dated 16.12.2010 and 4.1.2012. Neither prima facie case nor balance of convenience is in favour of the complainant and no irreparable loss will be caused to the complainants by not granting stay; hence, application be dismissed.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

3-4. Learned Counsel for the complainants submitted that OP has violated terms and conditions of development agreement dated 28.2.2007 and are creating interest of third parties causing loss to the complainants; hence, application be allowed and OP be restrained from creating interest of third parties in constructed area till disposal of complaint. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that as development contract was for developing commercial complex, this Forum has no jurisdiction and further submitted that as per agreement, area had already been allotted to complainants long back in July, 2012; hence, application be dismissed.

5. It is not disputed that development agreement dated 28.2.2007 executed between the parties was to develop commercial complex and as per agreement, 45% of the developed area was to be given to the complainant and 55% was to be retained by OP. Complainant has obtained services of OP for developing commercial complex and nowhere it has been pleaded in the complaint that the project was for earning livelihood by self-employment, hi such circumstances, prima facie, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Learned Counsel for the complainants submitted that development contract between the owner of land and builder falls within purview of Consumer Protection Act. She placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in (2008) 10 SCC 345, Faqir Chand Gulati v. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. in which contract for demolition of existing structure and constructing a residential building consisting of ground, first and second floors at the cost of builder was executed and as per agreement landowner was entitled to entire ground floor and remaining two floors were to be retained by builder. Aforesaid case is not applicable to the case in hand because in present case complainants handed over one acre of land and OP including complainant's land obtained permission to construct commercial complex on 25 acres of land and as per letter dated 10.7.2012, complainants were allotted office area of 43191 sq. ft. and retail area of 2616 sq. ft. She also placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in (2008) 10 SCC 366, Sujit Kumar Banerjee v. Rameshwaran & Ors. in which also there was agreement for construction of a residential building and delivery of an agreed percentage of the constructed area to the land owner by the builder whereas, in the present case there was agreement to develop huge commercial complex and in such circumstances, prima