The complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act as the relationship was purely landlord-tenant, not consumer-provider.

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This is an appeal by the complainant / appellant directed against the order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jabalpur 1 (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.644T/2017, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him. 2. Briefly put, facts of the case as narrated by the complainant / appellant are that the ATP machine of the opposite party / respondent was installed in the premises of the complainant / appellant for the duration from 01.05.2012 to 31.04.2015 i.e. for a total period of three years, regarding which an agreement was executed. It is further submitted that as per conditions of the agreement, after the de-installation of the subject machine, it was the responsibility of the opposite party / respondent to repair the complainant’s premises. The complainant / appellant was paid rent of Rs.1,967.50/- per month by the opposite party / respondent for the aforesaid duration. It is alleged that the opposite party / respondent was paying less rent amount. The complainant / appellant alleged that he ought to have been paid Rs.2997.50/- per month and accordingly, Rs.14,965/- for the total duration of 15 months is to be paid to the complainant / appellant. When the complainant / appellant asked the opposite party / respondent to vacate his shop, it vacated the same and left it in a very bad condition. The opposite party / respondent should have repaired the subject premises after vacating the same. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party / respondent, the complainant/

appellant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The opposite party / respondent resisted the complaint on the ground that there is no relationship of ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ between the complainant / appellant and the opposite party / respondent. Present complaint is related to dispute between ‘landlord’ and ‘tenant’ and therefore, is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

4. The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

5. Heard.

6. The learned counsel for the complainant / appellant argued that since an agreement was executed between the complainant / appellant and the opposite party / respondent with regard to installation of ATP machine in his premises the complaint was maintainable before the District Commission. The District Commission has ignored the fact that the opposite party / respondent has violated the conditions of an agreement with regard to providing services and has thus erroneously passed the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party/ respondent on the other hand supported the impugned order and argued that it has rightly been held by the District Commission that the dispute between the complainant / appellant and opposite party /

respondent is not a consumer dispute.

8. In the instant case it is clear that the opposite party/ respondent had taken the premises of the complainant / appellant on rent regarding which rent agreement was executed. ‘Deed of Lease’ is also available in the record of the District Commission. The allegations of the complainant / appellant that he was being paid less rent and the opposite party /respondent did not take proper care of his premises, are clearly the disputes between a tenant and a landlord. The ‘Rent Control Act’ has been established for this purpose and as has rightly been held by the District Commission that the complainant / appellant could approach regarding redressal of his grievance under the ‘Rent Control Act’. No relief to the complainant / appellant could be granted under the Consumer Protection Act, since he does not fall in the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined under Section

2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

9. In v