The court affirmed that obligations to pay municipal taxes and maintenance charges arise only after the execution of the Deed of Conveyance, recognizing the Complainants as consumers under the Act.

JUDGMENT

AVM J. RAJENDRA AVSM VSM (Retd), PRESIDING MEMBER

1. 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 w