Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
M/s. Deb Construction —Petitioner
versus
Sukumar Paul and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.256 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 02/12/2015 in Appeal No. 1321/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 14.6.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vineet Kothari, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Anjon Kumar Dutta, Advocate and Mr. Arun Kumar Mahapatra, Advocate for R-1, Ms. Sailja Kothari, Advocate for R-2 and 3
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 —S.21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] -Revision against order of State Commission - Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat – Delayed Possession – Tenanted premises - Developer cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. In terms of the Agreement executed between both the Parties, while at one place the Developer gets the possession of the tenanted premises occupied by the Complainant/Respondent No.1 for constructing the proposed building as also receives part consideration from him out of the agreed sale consideration of the flat to be allotted/sold to him in terms of the said Agreement, on the other hand it is stated on its behalf that the Agreement was unregistered one and stood rescinded after 18 months and the Complainant/Respondent No.1 was only a Tenant of the Land Owners – Thus as far as the plea of the Developer taken in the Written Version that the Owners of the land had executed a power of attorney in favour of one A, on account of which it had no locus to enter into any Agreement with any person and, therefore, the Complainant/Respondent No.1 cannot claim any relief on the strength of the Agreement executed between the Parties, is concerned, Commission finds that the said A is nothing else but the husband of the Proprietress of the Developer, as stated in the parties’ description in the Agreement executed between the Parties and the Appeal filed before the State Commission – Therefore, State Commission and the District Commission have rightly allowed the Complaint, preferred by the Complainant/Respondent No.1. The Revision Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the Developer to the Complainant/Respondent No.1. [Paras 10,11].
Result: Revision dismissed.
ORDER
R.K. Agrawal, J., President—This Revision Petition has been filed by Deb Construction, Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint (hereinafter referred to as the Developer), against the Order dated 02.12.2015, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No. A/1321/2014. By the Impugned Order, while affirming the Order dated 30.10.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South 24 Parganas at Alipore, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Consumer Complaint No. 189 of 2014, preferred by the Complainant/Respondent No.1 herein, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Developer, with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the Developer to the Complainant/Respondent No.1.
2. While proceeding ex-parte against Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3, who are Respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively in the present Revision Petition, the District Commission had allowed the Complaint, preferred by the Complainant/Respondent No.1 herein, and directed the Opposite Parties, including the Developer, to execute and register the Conveyance Deed in respect of the property in question as per the Agreement and deliver possession within one month from the date of the Order, failing which the Complainant/Respondent No.1 was given liberty to initiate the Execution proceedings in accordance with law. Further, the Developer was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month towards rental charge from the date of delivery of possession of tenanted portion till handing over of the flat in question and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs. The said amounts were directed to be paid within one month, failing which the Developer was directed to pay penalty @ Rs.100/- per diem.
3. The brief facts as culled out from the Complaint are that Opposite Parties/Respondents No. 2 and 3 were Owners of the land situated at Premises No. 127/1, B.B. Chatterjee Road, Police Station Kasba, Kolkata, and the Complainant/Respondent No.1 was their Tenant in respect of two rooms, with kitchen etc. On 21.05.2005 Opposite Parties/Respondents No. 2 and 3 entered into a Development Agreement with the Developer, according to which a multi-storey building was to be built on the said land. Then on 23.06.2007 an Agreement was entered into between the Developer and the Complainant/Respondent No.1 on certain terms and conditions. Inter alia, a residential flat free from all encumbrances, admeasuring 805 sq. ft. covered area, to be built in the building on the land, was to be given to the Complainant/Respondent No.1. The flat in complete and habitable condition was to be handed over to the Complainant/Respondent No.1 and Conveyance Deed was to be executed/registered within 18 months from the date of getting the plans sanctioned from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. In view of the said Agreement, the Complainant/Respondent No.1 was to vacate the tenanted portion by 27.06.2007. In terms of the Agreement dated 23.06.2007, the Complainant/Respondent No.1 paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as advance money vide Pay Order dated 23.06.2007; vacated the tenanted portion on 27.06.2007; handed over the possession of the same to the Developer; and shifted to an alternate accommodation. After completion of the third floor, the Complainant/Respondent No.1 requested the Developer for giving possession of the flat in question and execute the Conveyance Deed but all in vain. It is averred that the Developer was liable to pay and bear expenses for alternate accommodation till delivery of possession but it did not pay any amount to the Complainant/Respondent No.1 therefor. The total amount spent by the Complainant/Respondent No.1 towards rent, licence fee, brokerage, shifting etc. was stated to be Rs.3,30,650/-. It is also stated that due to harassment caused by the Developer, the Complainant/
