Order no.2               Date:18.09.2023

Ld. Advocate for the complainants is present.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainants.

The case of the complainants is that they entered into an agreement with the opposite party/developer to purchase a flat measuring about 400 sq. ft. including 15% super built up area on the second floor, front portion of premises no.B/12/H/3, Bechu Chatterjee Street, P.S. Amherst Street, Kolkata-700 009 for a consideration of Rs.2,800/- (Rupees two thousand eight hundred) only per sq. ft. in respect of the said flat. The complainant has already paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh) only in total on different dates to the opposite party but till date the opposite party has not under taken any work of construction in the said premises.

It is apparent on the face of the record that premises no.B/12/H/3, Bechu Chatterjee Street, P.S. Amherst Street, Kolkata-700 009 is a Thika Tenancy property. There is no mention in the agreement for sale that any permission from the Thika Controller has been obtained for construction or re-building of the said Thika premises. There is also no mention of any sanction building plan by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

The complainants have prayed for completion of the sale procedure of the flat in terms of the agreement for sale dated 23.06.2020 interalia with a prayer of compensation and litigation cost. No alternative prayer has been made by the complainants for return of earnest amount paid by him. As the premises in question is a Thika tenant property, it cannot be legally transferred by way of sale or otherwise. Therefore no executable final order can be passed in this case. The un-registered agreement for sale executed between the parties has no legal value in the eye of law. Moreover Smt. Sandhya Das, who has been described as absolute owner of premises no.B/12/H/3, Bechu Chatterjee Street, P.S. Amherst Street, Kolkata-700 009 by the complainant has not been incorporated as a party to this complaint case. No document has also been filed to primafacie proof that Smt. Sandhya Das is absolute owner of the premises.

In light of the observation made above, we are of the opinion that the complaint case is not maintainable in law and cannot be admitted.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed as not maintainable in law.