Haryana

StateCommission

A/200/2016

JITENDER SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BASUNDHRA PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

M.K.SOOD

05 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      200 of 2016

Date of Institution:      08.03.2016

Date of Decision :       05.04.2016

 

Jitender Sharma s/o Sh. Tej Pal Sharma, Resident of Village Mirzapur, Tehsil and District Faridabad.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      M/s Basundhra Properties Private Limited Registered Office 201, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 through its Director.

2.      Mr. Vijay Pal s/o Sh. Ranbir Singh, Resident of House No.1954, Sector-9, near Community Centre, Faridabad.

3.      M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, Shopping Mall/City Mall, Site No.3, Sector 12, Faridabad through its Manager.

4.      Mr. Lakhminder Singh Member, Shopping Mall/City Mall, Site No.3, Sector 12, Faridabad.

5.      Shri S. Singh, Director, Shopping Mall/City Mall, Site No.3, Sector 12, Faridabad.

6.      Mr. Yogesh Jain, Managing Director, Shopping Mall/City Mall, Site No.3, Sector 12, Faridabad, Resident of Parsvnath Developers Limited, near Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Manoj Sood, Advocate for appellant. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated January 18^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2011 was dismissed.

2.      Vijay Pal-Opposite Party/respondent No.2, purchased a shop from M/s Basundhra Properties Private Limited-Opposite Party/respondent No.1 and M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited-Opposite Party/respondent No.3. Lakhminder Singh, S. Singh and Yogesh Jain-Opposite Parties/respondents No.4,5 and 6, are the employees of the opposite parties/respondents No.1 to 3. Opposite Party/respondent No.2 let out the shop to the complainant at a monthly rent of Rs.12,600/-, w.e.f. 01.01.2009 for a period of eleven months, vide Rent Note dated 12.06.2009. The tenancy period was further extended. Alleging that there was some leakage in the shop, on account of which some goods of the complainant suffered damage, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service. The complainant sought compensation of Rs.10,26,200/- besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. It was also stated that a complaint was filed with the Police for non-maintenance of the tenanted premises.

3.      The opposite parties/respondents, contested complaint raising preliminary objection that it was a dispute between the landlord and tenant i.e. between the complainant and opposite party/respondent No.2. Therefore, complaint was not maintainable. On merits, it was denied that there was any leakage and that whenever any maintenance was required, the same was got done by the opposite parties.

4.      Opposite Party/respondent No.2 also raised plea that he had purchased the shop from Naveet Goyal; the premises was let out to one Shri Happy in March, 2010, vide Rent Note executed between the parties and that a sum of Rs.92,000/- was due against the tenant towards arrears of rent. Other allegations were denied.

5.      After hearing the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

6.      It is own case of the complainant/appellant, that he had taken the premises on rent from Vijay Pal-Opposite Party No.2. If the landlord failed to provide some amenities or to maintain the same, it cannot be termed as consumer dispute and the tenant cannot be termed as “consumer”. The complainant in para No.5 of the complaint has admitted that he has paid rent upto 30.12.2009 only. Having not paid rent w.e.f. 01.01.2010, the complainant has resorted to complain with concocted reasons. Otherwise also, opposite party/respondent No.2 has denied any relationship with the complainant submitting that the shop has been let out to Happy in March, 2010. Thus, no case for interference is made out.

7.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 05.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL