For the Petitioner :

Mr. Rakesh Mishra, Advocate

Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Advocate

Mr. Abhinav Hansaria, Advocate

For the Respondent :

Mr. Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Abhijit Sen Gupta, Adv.

O R D E R

(Pronounced on 13^th day of January, 2014)

D.K. JAIN, J., PRESIDENT

This revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been preferred by the opposite party in the Consumer Complaint (D.F. Case No. 180 of 2006) against order dated Sept.9, 2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short “the State Commission”) in first appeal (SC Case No. FA/08/237), whereby the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alipore (for short “the District Forum”) dismissing the aforesaid complaint has been reversed and the complaint has been allowed with consequential reliefs.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:

In August 1981, by three separate registered Deeds of Conveyance, the three original owners of the subject land transferred their undivided 1/3^rd share each to one Jupitor Drug Company, which in turn, entered into an agreement dated Aug.23, 1988 with the petitioner, for development of the land by constructing flats, etc.. Flats with car parking area in the basement, one assembly hall on one side and one maintenance area on the other side of the ground floor of the building were constructed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, sale deeds in respect of the flats were executed in the year 1990 and possession of the flats/car parking spaces were also delivered to the respective buyers immediately thereafter.

3. Upon purchase of the flats and car parking, the flat owners formed a co-operative society, named as Arunoday Apartment Owners Association, which was registered on June 12, 2003. Mrs. Monika Sen was a party to the tripartite agreement, dated April 17, 1990, between the owners, developers and herself, as purchaser of one of the flats. She is also one of the members of the association. It seems that there was some dispute relating to the possession of the ‘assembly hall’ and ‘maintenance area.’ The petitioner/developer’s stand was that both the said areas belonged to them and the owner, whereas the association claimed that all the flat buyers had undivided share in the said two areas. However, having failed to get the possession of the said assembly hall and maintenance area, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in not handing over the possession of the said spaces, on Oct.30, 2006 a complaint against the petitioner was filed, inter alia, praying for handing over of the possession of the ‘assembly hall’ and the ‘maintenance area’ on the ground floor along with compensation.

4. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on several grounds, including the objections that the complaint was barred by limitation; the association had no locus standi to file the complaint and that under the provisions of the WB Building (Regulations of promotion of construction and transfer by promoters) Act, 1993 (for short “the WB Act”) any dispute between the purchaser of any flat and the promoter had to be resolved by the mechanism stipulated in the Act and not in any other