Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President
M/s. City View Enterprises – Appellant
versus
HUDA and Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No.106
of 2021 in CC/202/2010
Decided on 17.4.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.12(1)(a)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.35(1)(a)] – CPC, 1908 – S.151 - Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / Plot – Delayed Possession – Refusal for issuance of OC - Direction for issuance of Occupancy Certificate - On merits, HSVP has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to substantiate that the Complainant Firm has purchased the plot for gaining profit or running a business of profit gaining. Moreover, it has already been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission in catena of judgments that “housing” is a service. The Complainant has purchased the office Plot in question from the HSVP and after getting approved the Building Plans from them, they started the construction over the Plot. After completing the Construction they applied for Completion Certificate which was refused by the HSVP and it amounts to deficiency in service. The ground taken by the HSVP for refusal of Occupancy/Completion Certificate was that zoning violation in the Elevation were not removed by the Complainant Firm. However, according to the Complainant Firm, there is no violation and the construction was done in terms of the Building Plan approved by the HSVP – On facts, Commission directed, direct the Respondent HSVP to issue Occupation/Completion Certificate to the Complainant Company in respect of the building constructed. [Paras 10 to 16].
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
The present Miscellaneous Application No. 106 of 2021 has been filed by the Complainant seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to issue Occupation/Completion Certificate in respect of the building constructed on SCO Plot No. 61, Sector 29, Gurugram, regularize the sewerage connection, develop dedicated parking space etc.
2. Succinctly put, the material facts relevant for disposal of the Miscellaneous Application No. 106 of 2021 and I. A. No. 11854 of 2022 are that one Shri D.P. Sharma purchased a shop-cum-office bearing No.5, Sector -12A, Gurgaon in an open auction held on 08.02.1990. On 01.04.1992, the aforesaid site was re-allotted in the name of one Shri Ranbir Singh Dahiya, who deposited the sale consideration. Since the Opposite Party, Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikharan (hereinafter referred to as the “HSVP”) failed to deliver physical possession of the said site, the re-allottee Shri Ranbir Singh Dahiya filed a Consumer Complaint seeking allotment of alternative site in lieu of Site No.5, Sector 12A, Gurgaon. The District Forum vide its Order dated 04.05.2001 directed the HSVP (HUDA) to allot Site No.61, Sector 29, Gurgaon in lieu of Site No.5, Sector 12A, Gurgaon to the said Re-allottee. Since the aforesaid direction despite having been affirmed by the Appellate Fora was not complied with, execution proceedings were initiated by the said Re-allottee and matter reached to this Commission by way of filing a Revision Petition. By an interim Order, this Commission directed the HSVP (HUDA) to deliver possession of the plot in question to Shri Ranbir Singh on deposit of Rs.80 lakh. On 21.11.2006, the subsequent re-allottee applied for issuance of Conveyance Deed. However, the Conveyance Deed was not executed in his favour. The said re-allottee also applied for issuance of Building Plan which was sanctioned only on 25.05.2007. However, meanwhile, possession to the re-allottee was delivered on 25.01.2007. This Commission vide Order dated 02.02.2007 directed the payment of additional amount by the said re-allottee which came to be deposited on 09.02.2007. The Conveyance Deed in favour of the Ranbir Singh was executed through the GPA holder Shri Krishan Lal on 01.03.2007.
3. On 07.08.2007, Shri Krishan Lal GPA holder of re-allottee Shri Ranbir Singh Dahiya applied for transfer of the aforesaid plot in the name of Complainant Firm, M/s City View Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant Firm”). On 12.12.2007, re-allotment letter was issued in favour of the Complainant Firm. On 01.04.2008, a new partnership deed was executed inducting a new partner in the firm which was followed by execution of a retirement deed dated 04.06.2008 whereby one of the Partners namely Satish Kumar retired from the firm and then a fresh partnership deed between remaining partners namely Gopal Dass and Smt. Lakshmi Bai was executed. On 03.09.2008, the Complainant Firm applied for issuance of the Completion Certificate of the building constructed by them on Site No. 61, Sector 29, Gurgaon, however, the same was not issued. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant Firm filed the Consumer Complaint No. 202 of 2010 before this Commission seeking a direction to the Opposite Party to issue the Completion Certificate and to pay an amount of Rs.5,18,40,000/- towards loss of business income etc.
4. On appraisal of the facts of the case, this Commission, vide its Order dated 01.02.2016, dismissed the Complaint with the following observations:—
“The complainant is before us as a partnership firm which consisted of three persons at the time plot in question was purchased from its re-allottee Shri Ranbir Singh Dahiya through his attorney. After purchase of the plot by the aforesaid firm, a new partner Smt. Kailash Bai was inducted and exiting partner Shri Satish Kumar retired from the firm. Though, it is vaguely claimed that the construction on the plot was raised by the complainant for earning his livelihood, there is no such averments with respe
Purchase designation as 'consumer' hinges on intent of use; ownership for profit does not automatically exclude consumer protection.
Basic Amenities - In the present case, the Opposite Party Authority had completely failed to provide basic amenities like approach roads on the sides of the allotted Plots, which is a clear case of d....
Housing Construction – Acquisition of property for commercial venture business – Complainant not “Consumer” – No deficiency in service.
In the event of failure to give possession of flat as agreed, purchaser is entitled to approach Consumer Commission.
In the event of failure to give possession of flat as agreed, purchaser is entitled to approach Consumer Commission.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
