Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
AVM J. Rajendra AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member
M/s Mayank Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
versus
Amit Kumar Ghosh and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.1360 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 07.02.2019 in Appeal No. 1050/2017 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
With IA/9915/2019, IA/9916/2019 (Stay, Exemption from filing the Certified Copy)
Decided on 25.6.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate (VC)
For the Respondents:Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Advocate (VC)

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Shop or commercial—The State Commission rightly held that mere labelling of the unit as a ‘shop’ or “commercial” would not ipso facto lead to disqualification under the Act, especially where the actual use was linked to livelihood through self-employment.
(2) Shop for sustenance—The admitted factual background, including the long-standing tenancy and continuation of use of the shop for sustenance, establishes that the transaction was for livelihood and not commercial exploitation.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)] – Land-lord Tenant dispute – whether Clause 16 of the Agreement for Sale imposed a precondition on the Complainants to pay municipal taxes and maintenance charges prior to execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance? – Whether the Complainants qualify as “consumers” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1986 – The purchaser of the property shall enjoy all rights of an absolute owner after becoming one – However, even after becoming an absolute owner, his rights to enjoy the property absolutely shall commence upon the payments of the municipal taxes, maintenance costs etc. – Thus, first there has to be conferment of ownership through the execution and registration of the sale deed, followed by the liability to pay municipal taxes, maintenance charges, and other outgoings and thereafter, the Complainants can enjoy their rights as rightful owners of the property. Therefore, in the absence of a registered conveyance, no such financial obligation can be legally imposed on the Complainants. The contrary stand taken by the OP is in direct conflict with the express language of the agreement – The State Commission correctly interpreted the contractual terms and applied the above legal position to hold that the OP was not justified in raising such demands before executing the conveyance. Hence, Commission affirmed the interpretation of the State Commission that the obligation to pay these charges cannot precede the conferment of ownership – As regards the second issue, the status of the Complainants as “consumers” has been questioned by OP on the ground that the shop was purchased for commercial use – In the present case, no evidence has been brought on record by the OP to demonstrate that the Complainants were engaged in real estate transactions or using the premises for profiteering purposes. On the contrary, the admitted factual background, including the long-standing tenancy and continuation of use of the shop for sustenance, establishes that the transaction was for livelihood and not commercial exploitation. The State Commission rightly held that mere labelling of the unit as a ‘shop’ or “commercial” would not ipso facto lead to disqualification under the Act, especially where the actual use was linked to livelihood through self-employment – In addition, the Complainants” conduct establishes that there was readiness and willingness on their part to complete their obligations. Evidently, they discharged their full burden of payment of the entire consideration and received the suit property possession. This was coupled with admitted delivery of possession which confirms the enforceability of the agreement. Thus, the State Commission rightly appreciated that the description was sufficient for identifying the property, especially when OP acted upon the agreement by handing over the said shop’s possession. Thus, the District Forum’s conclusion that the decree would be inexecutable is unsustainable and misplaced – Petition dismissed. [Paras 10 to 22].
Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

AVM J. Rajendra AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member—This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) Order dated 07.02.2019 FA No. 1050/2017 which allowed the Appeal of the Complainant and set aside the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum Kolkata-III (South) (“District Forum”) order dated 30.08.2017 in CC No. 493/2016.

2. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainants are that they were tenants of premises No.1, Andul Raj Road, PS-Tollygunge, Kolakata- 700026, under the joint owners namely Smt. Latika Mitra and Sri Amitava Mitra. The said joint owners later sold the property vide two Deeds of Conveyance dated 19.04.2006 and 19.06.2006 in favour of OP. After such transfer, Complainants became tenants of the OP and paid regular monthly rents. In pursuance of an understanding between the parties, a sale Agreement was executed on 20.03.2008 wherein the Complainants agreed to purchase a self-maintained 330 sq. ft. built up area shop consisting of one room in the ground floor southern side for a consideration of Rs.2,31,000. The Complainants paid Rs.1,100 by cheque dated 20.3.2008, drawn on Bank of Baroda and Rs.70,000 by cheque drawn on Central Bank of India. He again paid Rs.1,59,000 by cheque. They thus paid the entire consideration and possession of the shop was delivered to them on 15.12.2011. After taking possession, the Complainants requested OP time and again to complete the execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the said shop but it turned a deaf ear. Hence, they filed Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of OP.

4. On being issued notice, OP filed its Written Statement wherein it admitted the existence of the Agreement for Sale, the receipt of total consideration of Rs.2,31,000 and the delivery of possession of the shop to the Complainants on 15.12.2001. However, the OP contended that the Complainants failed to clear dues including corporation tax of Rs.23,463, maintenance charges of Rs.68,310 and did not demonstrate their readiness for sale deed registration and were thus in breach of their obligations. As lawful occupants of the property, the Complainants were required to bear the financial responsibilities arising from such possession. Thus, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint due to the Complainants’ failure to discharge these dues.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 30.08.2017, dismissed the complaint with the following finding:

“On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainants have prayed for execution and registration of the deed of conveyance of the shop room mentioned in the schedule below in their favour. On perusal of this schedule, it appears that schedule A is all that piece and parcel of land measuring 10 cottahs, 14 chittacks and 14 sq.ft. and it does not describe any shop room. Schedule B talks about one shop room having an area of 330 sg.ft. consisting of one room in the ground floor southern side of the proposed building with undivided impartible proportionate share in the land corresponding with common area facilities of the building. However, Schedule B does not specify the details in order to be clear because the boundary of schedule B is not mentioned. For the sake of argument, if a decree is awarded in favour of the Complainant over Schedule B, it will be an in-executable-decree and it would be infructuous exercise by the Forum. On perusal of the agreement for sale between the Complainants and the OP, it appears that by and large the contents mentioned in the complaint petition are narrated herein. However, here also in the 2nd schedule no boundary is mentioned. First schedule describes about the land of 10 cottahs 14 chittkas and 14 sq.ft