PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Heard Counsel for the Complainant on admission of the complaint. The case of the Complainant is that he had entered into a Lease Agreement on 20.7.2005 with the Opposite Party no.1 for an area of 5235 Sq. ft. in respect of Unit No. GSR.01 on the ground floor of shopping Mall ‘Ansal Plaza’. The Opposite Parties gave only 3800 Sq. ft. of area but did not give occupation of 1435 sq. ft. Ansal Plaza was inaugurated on 17.12.2005. About 10 to 12 establishments closed their businesses in the Mall due to deficient services by the Opposite Parties. However, the Complainant renewed lease upto 19.7.2011. Subsequently, in June, 2009 the Complainant stopped making payments of rent and maintenance charges due to non abiding of promises and representations by the Opposite Parties. Subsequently, thereafter the Complainant filed a suit seeking prohibitory injunction against forcible and illegal ejectment of the Complainant from the suit premises. The said suit is still pending in the court of Addition Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ghaziabad. The Opposite Parties during the pendency of the said suit, disconnected electricity without notice on account of which the Complainant had to close the premises with stock of Rs.30 lakhs inside. The Opposite Parties removed the valuable stores of the Complainant costing for Rs.30 lakhs and the furniture and fixture of Rs.40 lakhs from the leased premises and disposed of the same thereby committing theft. A complaint of theft was lodged with the Police. The Complainant therefore seeks to recover a sum of Rs.1,30,00,000/- with 18% interest thereon as per details below:- (a) Cost of furniture 40,00,000/- (b) Cost of Stock inside the premises 30,00,000/- (c) loss incurred due to deficient service in 30,00,000/- three years (d) Compensation for the rest of the period 30,00,000/- of lease i.e. upto 19.7.2011 ---------------- TOTAL 1,30,00,000/- Plus interest @ 18% p.a. Till the payment is made to Complainant According to the Complainant cause of action arose on 31.8.2010 when the Complainant came to know about the misdeeds of the Opposite Parties. At the outset, we must point out that the Complainant in question does not pertain to consumer dispute. The Complainant has no where stated as to how he would qualify to be consumer within the definition of Section 21(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The lease was taken for commercial purpose and according to the Complainant he had invested huge amount running into 70 lacs. Besides this, the matter pertains of lease between the parties which is a civil dispute and in fact the Complainant has already approached the civil court where the matter is pending and he has also lodged a police complaint of theft. On the facts disclosed, we do not find that any case has been made out for admission of the matter. The complaint is accordingly summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. |
