REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

        Revision petition no. 1062 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner / complainant – Mahesh K Mehta and RP no. 2105 of 2016 has been filed by the Bhartiya Friend’s Co-operative Housing Society Limited, the respondent/ opposite party against the judgment dated 22.02.2016 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (‘the State Commission) in First Appeal no. A/15/183.

2.     Since these two revision petitions have been filed against a common order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the State Commission, Maharashtra, hence, we propose to decide both the revision petitions by passing a common order taking RP no. 1062 of 2016 as the lead case.

3.     The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner/ complainant was the flat purchaser in the building maintained by the respondent/ opposite party - Cooperative Housing Society by the title ‘Bharatiya Friend’s Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,  registered as B – 720 of 1950 Situated at Sadhana ‘B’ Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. The petitioner was a member of the Society and was residing in Flat no. 45 in Sadhana Building. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to allow a comfortable world class standard stay facility to the tourists as paying guests in his flat pursuant to the order dated 09.05.2014 as licence from the Indian Tourism Department. According to the petitioner such an activity can neither be construed as a commercial activity nor for ‘non-residential use’. The petitioner/ complainant filed a Consumer Complaint no. 182 of 2014 with the following prayer:

1. Direct the opposite party to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the complainant;

2. Direct the opposite party to make up for the mistake by withdrawing the penalty and interest thereon and correct various injustice done to the complainant;

3. Pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant and his family members; and

4. Direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of this petition.

4.     The respondent/ opposite party raised objections on the maintainability of the complaint. It was contended that the society had prohibited the petitioner from using the flat for commercial purpose and the petitioner had challenged the validity of the resolutions of the society. The dispute between the Co-operative Society and the members were pending before the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society. It was submitted that there was no relationship between the parties as a consumer and service provider.

5.     The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 22.12.2014, had dismissed the complaint.

6.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed a