BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
R.P.No.88 OF 2013 AGAINST I.A.NO.31 OF 2013 IN C.C.NO.117 OF 2013 DISTRICT FORUM-III HYDERABAD
Between
M/s Vamshi Builders, rep. by
Sri T.Raj Kumar Singh, Plot No.43,
Amarjyothi Colony, Bowenpally
Secunderabad-009
Petitioner/respondent/opposite party no.1
1. Vasu Apartment Flat Owners Welfare Association
Plot No.18 & 19 Kalyan Nagar, Gaddiannaram,
Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its President
BLN Reddy, S/o B.C.Reddy, aged 52, Occ: Govt.Servant
R/o Flat No.004, Vasu Apartments, Plot Nos.18 & 19
Kalyan Nagar,Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad
2. S.Vikram Reddy
3. P.Sravan Reddy
4. V.Chandrasekhar Reddy
5. P.Madhusudhan Reddy
(R2 to 5 are not necessary parties)
Respondents/petitioners/complainants
Counsel for the Appellants M/s Sunil B.Ganu
Counsel for the Respondents M/s A.Jayaraju
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
MONDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The first opposite party is the appellant. The respondent no.1 - filed complaint seeking for delivery of possession of pent house constructed on the terrace of Vasu Apartments, Plot No. 18 & 19, Kalyannagar, Gaddiannaram, Dilsuknagar, Hyderabad and restraining the appellant from collecting rent on the pent house for the period from 01.01.2013 and restraining the appellant from causing nuisance in the building and further restraining the appellant from interfering with the meetings held by the respondent no.1.
2. The respondent no.1 filed application in I.A.No. 170 of 2013 seeking permission to amend the complaint by deleting relief nos. 2 to 4. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed petition, I.A.No. 31 of 2013 seeking for direction to restrain the revision petitioner from interfering with its meetings till the disposal of the complaint.
3. The revision petitioner filed counter contending that the relief sought for cannot be granted as the revision-petitioner is also a member of the respondent no1-association. It is contended that the respondent no.1 is estopped from questioning the petitioner constructing two rooms in stilt floor as the purchasers of the two rooms are also the members of the respondent no.1-association and that the rooms were constructed in the year, 2005 and the claim therefor is barred by law of limitation. The revision petitioner submitted that the Flats constructed at stilt floor and 3rd floor had been regularised and the opposite parties no.2 to 5 had already vacated the Flats and as such the complaint against the opposite parties no.2 to 5 is not maintainable.
4. The matter was posted for filing of the affidavit of the respondent no.1 in the CC and for hearing in the IA No. 31 of 2013 and the District Forum allowed the application on 4.09.2013.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party no.1 has filed revision contending that the building is situate at Gaddiannaram,Dilsukhnagar and Ranga Reddy District Forum alone has jurisdiction to try the matter and not the District Forum, Hyderabad-III. It is contended that the District Forum has passed one sided and partisan order without hearing the revision petitioner and that the relief sought for in the IA was initially sought for in the CC which was later deleted in pursuance of order in IA No. 170 of 2013.
6. The revision petitioner has contended that the District Forum has not passed a speaking order and it passed a cryptic order and that the District Forum has not considered the objection of the revision petitioner as to the maintainability of the complaint and the dispute in regard to formation of the respondent no.1-association. It is contended that the revision petitioner being owner and occupier of subject Flat bearing has a right of hearing in the meeting of the flat owners and that the respondent no.1-association cannot pass any resolution affecting the rights of the revision petitioner in respect of the petitioner without hearing the revision petitioner.
7. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts or law?
8. The respondent no.1 filed petition, I.A.No. 170 of 2012 seeking permission of the District Forum for amendment of the complaint by deleting the names of the tenants who vacated their respective Flats and the District Forum allowed the petition.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the revision petitioner and his son have been frequently visiting the Apartments and causing nuisance by interfering with the affairs of the respondent no.1-association. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner is the owner and occupier of one Flat and as such the revision petitioner has right to participate in the meetings held by the respondent no.1.
10. The revision petitioner has not adduced any evidence to show that he is the owner and occupier of any Flat in the building. His description in the cause title of the Revision Petition would show that he is the resident of Amaravathi Colony, locality Bowenpalli, Secunderabad. The statement of the respondent no.1 is supported by the fact that the revision petitioner is residing elsewhere and not at any of the Flats in the building. The District Forum has rightly allowed the petition.
11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the matter as the Apartments are situate at Gaddiannaram, Dilsuknagar within the jurisdiction of District Forum at Ranga Reddy. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1-associaiton has submitted that respondent no.1 is residing within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Hyderabad-III and the revision petitioner has executed sale deeds in respect of the Flats at the office of sub-registrar, Azampura within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Hyderabad-III . There is no evidence contra to the fact that the respondent is the resident of locality which falls within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Hyderabad-III and the revision petitioner executed sale deeds in respect of the Flats in favour of the purchasers at the office of sub-registrar, Azampura within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Hyderabad-III. We find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the formation of respondent no1-society is not in accordance with law and with seven members the respondent no.1-society cannot seek for legal existence and as such the complaint is not maintainable.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1-society has submitted that seven members are sufficient for submitting the proposal to the Registrar of Societies and as per the agreement the revision petitioner had to construct 15 Flats in each Floor leaving stilt area for parking of the vehicles and the revision petitioner had obtained permission from the Municipal Authorities for construction of two floors and to safeguard his illegal acts, the revision petitioner had not made any attempt to register the respondent no.1-society.
14. The dispute as to formation of respondent no.1-society and any objection thereto, can be agitated before the competent authority, i.e., the registrar of societies. The revision petitioner had not established that he is the owner of any particular Flat as also he failed to prove that he used to attend the meetings held by the respondent no.1-society. The revision petitioner has not shown any illegality or irregularity in the order of the District Forum. As such we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum.
15. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no separate order as to costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.20.01.2014
