M.V. Muralidaran, J.

The Judgment debtor/opposite party in C.C.No.254 of 2007 and the respondent in E.A.No.26 of 2010 is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order in E.A.No.26 of 2010 in C.C.No.254 of 2007, dated 04.05.2011, on the file of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), Mylapore, Chennai-4.

2. The respondent/decree holder/plaintiff has filed a complaint in C.C.No.254 of 2007 before the learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), Mylapore, Chennai-4 under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25,200/- payable by the opposite party towards rental returns for the past six years along with the compound interest at the rate of 18% being the contractual rate or in the alternative to pay a refund of the investment amount of Rs.28,000/- along with compound interest at the rate of 18% as provided under Clause 17 of the agreement, and to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental stress, mental agony and for the costs of the complaint alleging deficient on the part of the opposite party.

3. It is the case of the respondent/decree holder/complainant that the complainant is a decree holder of a time share in home time mansion under the agreement of sale dated 20.05.1995 for the period of 99 years starting the date of full payment. The respondent/complainant further states that he has paid the full payment in the month of March 1997. Having paid full and final payment, he is entitled to allot the benefits under the agreement. As per Clause 27 of the agreement, the complainant had the option to request that the opposite party to rent out his time share for a maximum period of six years and that the opposite party is bound to pay the rental arrears to the complainant.

4. The respondent/complainant further states that when he made request to the opposite party to rent out his time share and pay the rental income, but the petitioner/opposite party had replied that they have decided not to consider rental returns from the year 1997 for the next 5 to 10 years. Therefore, if the conditions are breached by the opposite party, the complainant is entitled to refund the time share value and the maintenance charges paid by him with interest at the rate of 18% per annum as per Clause 17 of the agreement. Since the opposite party has not come forward to settle the claim of the complainant, the respondent/complainant has filed the complaint before the said District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Mylapore, Chennai (South) for the above relief cited supra.

5. On receipt of the summons, the petitioner/opposite party has filed his version and contended inter alia that it is true that the respondent/complainant is a decree holder of the share in home time mansion. As per the terms and conditions of the time share, the respondent/complainant had the option to rent out his time share for a maximum period of six years. But, in the agreement, it was stated that the rental amount will be given to the share holders only when the company runs in a successful manner.

6. It is further case of the petitioner/opposite party is that the complainant became defunct and had to pay huge amount to the banks. Therefore, this petitioner/opposite party would not pay the rental arrears to the complainant. Hence, this petitioner/opposite party has filed the Company Petition in C.P.No.2879 of 2007 before this Court and it is open to the complainant to implead himself in the matter and get the dividend according to the availability in the company. In the said circumstances, this petitioner/opposite party states that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

7. Considering the respondent/complainant's case, the learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) was pleased to allow the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant and the learned District Co