Back
Tripura High Court Imposes Rs Forty Thousand Cost on Homebuyers for Suppressing Execution Proceeding
The has dismissed a writ petition filed by four homebuyers seeking enforcement of demolition orders against a developer, imposing a total cost of ₹40,000 for suppressing an ongoing execution proceeding before the . Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud held that the petitioners had not approached the court with and were pursuing for the same .
The Dispute Over 'The Royal Peace Apartment'
The petitioners—Kishore Roy Acharjee, Arpita Chakraborty, Partha Pratim Paul, and Paramita Das—purchased ground-floor units in The Royal Peace Apartment at Battala, Agartala, in . They alleged that the developer, Dilip Kumar Sutradhar, had constructed toilets and a brick-wall tin-shed guard room beyond the approved municipal building plan, creating unhygienic conditions and obstructing access. After complaints to the and , both authorities passed orders directing demolition of the unauthorised structures. When the developer failed to comply, the homebuyers approached the High Court under .
Parallel Proceedings and Suppressed Facts
The court noted that the petitioners had not only approached the municipal corporation and
simultaneously but had also filed an execution proceeding before
before moving the High Court—a fact they failed to disclose. Justice Goud observed:
"It transpires that they have not approached this Court with
."
The judgment further recorded that the petitioners were using the residential premises for commercial purposes—a pathology laboratory and an eye clinic—which was contrary to the building permission and the deed of conveyance.
Arguments and Counter-Arguments
, for the petitioners, argued that the unauthorised construction forced the flat owners to live in unhygienic conditions and obstructed their commercial activities. He contended that despite multiple orders, the municipal authorities had taken no action.
In response, , representing the developer, submitted that the dispute was civil in nature and not maintainable under . He claimed that the developer had attempted to demolish the structures but faced resistance from other flat owners. He also pointed out that the petitioners had suppressed the execution proceeding before .
, for the Municipal Corporation, argued that the petitioners were pursuing , which is impermissible under law. He placed reliance on the 's ruling in Kabra and Associates v. Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev (Civil Appeal No. 6936 of ), which holds that where two concurrent remedies are available, a party cannot pursue both after electing one.
Legal Analysis: and
The High Court accepted the principle laid down in Kabra and Associates , noting that the petitioners had elected to approach and could not simultaneously invoke the without disclosing the earlier proceeding. The court also found that the common toilet on the ground floor was "a basic necessity" for security personnel, caretakers, and domestic workers, and that the municipal corporation and could have considered the ground reality before ordering demolition.
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
"It transpires that they have not approached this Court with
."
-
"The petitioners herein converted residential building into commercial purpose which is in contravention to the building construction and permission and as well contrary to deed of conveyance."
-
"The facility of a common toilet is a basic necessity and the same is in the ground floor which is used by the security persons, care taker, plumber, electricians and maid servants."
-
"Since, the petitioners have created litigation as indicated from above, the same is also not
."
Final Decision and Costs
Dismissing the petition, Justice Goud directed each of the four petitioners to pay ₹10,000 (totalling ₹40,000) to the within one month and obtain a receipt. The court declined to grant any relief, holding that the petitioners' conduct disentitled them from . The order underscores the importance of disclosing all and adhering to the principle of in real estate disputes.
