This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Prem Chandra Sharma against the order dated 02.07.2009 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal on No.610 of 2009.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant was allotted a shop vide allotment letter dated 17.03.2001 of the opposite party/respondent wherein 30% of the total consideration of the amount was to be deposited within 30 days and 70% was to be given by way of 14 six monthly instalments.  It is the case of the opposite party that neither 30% of the total consideration was deposited within 30 days nor all the instalments were paid.  It is further the case of the opposite party that an offer of possession was sent in the year 2003 itself, however, the complainant did not take the possession nor came forward for executing the lease deed.  The last date for executing the lease deed was 16.09.2003 and the date of operation of the shop was on 16.10.2003.  The opposite party had informed the complainant that if the lease deed is not executed within the stipulated period, there should be penalty for the delay in execution of the lease deed. The complainant represented to the opposite party that the possession was to be delivered within one year, however, the same was delayed by the opposite party and therefore, no question of penalty within the payment plan should arise.  The complainant also asked for the interest on the deposited amount.  However, the requests of the complainant were not accepted by the opposite party, therefore, the complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No. 344 of 2007 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gautambudh Nagar (in short ‘District Forum’).  The complaint was resisted by the opposite party on the ground that the complainant did not pay 30% of the total consideration amount within 30 days as per the allotment letter and also did not pay all the instalments as required.  Hence, the complainant was not entitled to any relief.  The District Forum, however after considering the evidence and submissions of the parties passed the following order on 18.03.2009:-

“The complaint of the complainant is partly admitted.  The opposite party is hereby directed that after executing the lease deed in favour of the complainant, the possession of his allotted shop be handed over to him within two months of receipt of this judgment.

      The opposite party is again further directed that by determining/fixing the installments on the previous terms and conditions of the allotment letter, he shall realize the outstanding remaining payment of the installments from the complainant.  After having received the information regarding execution of the lease deed from the Opposite party the complainant shall complete the required necessary formalities immediately.  The parties shall bear their  own cost.”

3.      Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal bearing No. 610/2009 before the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 02.07.2009 while observing the following:

“The appellant/complainant was allotted a shop possession of which was proposed to be delivered on payment of 30% of the total price.  The appellant failed to carryout his part of obligation and did not comply with the letter dated 16-08-2003 whereby he was asked to take delivery of possession.  Admittedly there was default in payment of not only the 30% of the total price but also the balance thereof.  A sum of Rs.1,51,966/- is still outstanding against the appellant.  We do not find any merit in this appeal.  The District Consumer Forum below has also recorded a finding against the complainant to the effect that since the complainant himself is a defaulter, he is not entitled to any relief.  We endorse the finding and conclusion arrived at by the forum below and find no merit in this appeal.  Resultantly it is dismissed.”

4.      Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant stated that the complainant deposited 30% within prescribed period as Rs.2,00,000/- were deposited on 11.06.2001 apart from Rs.60,000/- as initial booking amount and these amounts are more than 30 % of the total consideration.  The complainant had paid instalments till 23.08.2006 and an amount of Rs.7,41,111/- was deposited till that date. Thus, it is wrong to say that 30% amount and the instalments were not deposited.  It was further stated by the learned counsel that after the order of the State Commission the complainant approached the opposite party and the opposite party vide their letter dated 07.08.2009 has informed that the complainant was required to pay approximately Rs.29 lakhs, which include remaining premium amount of Rs.12,70,180/- including the interest, delay charges for execution of lease deed beyond 16.08.2003 as Rs.10,09,200/-, delay charges on account of delay in operationalizing the shop beyond 16.10.2003 Rs.6,43,030/- along with some other minor demands.  It was argued by the learned counsel that the delay in the possession has been caused due to the fact that the opposite party delayed the construction and the construction was not completed even upto 2012 as would be clear from the reply given by the opposite party in the context of a RTI question, wherein it has been clearly stated that the project has been completed only in the year 2012.  Therefore, no question of offering actual possession of the shop to the complainant in the year 2003 could have arisen and moreover, there should be no question of any penal charges for delay in execution of the lease deed.  Similarly when the possession has not been given, the shop cannot be operationalized.  Therefore, there should be no question of penal charges for operationalization of the shop. Thus, it was argued that the petitioner is ready to deposit the remaining premium along with interest, but the delay charges in respect of execution of lease deed and in respect of operationalization of the shop should be waived off in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party stated that the offer of possession was given in the year 2003 itself.  However, complainant did not come forward to take the possession.  Similarly letters were sent to the complainant for executing the lease deed, but the complainant objected on one ground or the other and has not executed the lease deed till now.  The opposite party had sent a letter clarifying all these aspects dated 07.08.2009 to the complainant in response to his letter dated 13.07.2009.  Even after giving all the information vide letter dated 07.08.2009, the complainant has not come forward for execution of the lease deed and to take the possession by depositing the demanded amount as per the letter dated 07.08.2009.  As per the conditions of the allotment letter, the complainant had not deposited 30% of the consideration amount within 30 days and has not paid all the instalments.  Even if averment of the complainant is accepted that Rs.2,00,000/- were paid on 11.06.2001, it was much beyond 30 days and therefore, the condition of depositing within 30 days was not met.  The complainant had not deposited any instalment beyond 23.08.2006.  The State Commission in its order clearly recorded these facts and on these grounds the State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal.  The request of the complainant in respect of waiver of the delay charges for execution of the lease deed and for operationalization of the shop cannot be accepted as these are the statutory charges levied by the opposite party.

7.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record.  First of all, it is seen that the State Commission has clearly observed that 30% of the consideration amount was not paid in time and there was default in payment of instalments as well.  Though the petitioner has stated that he has paid 30% of the total consideration in time, but it is seen that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been deposited by the complainant on 11.06.2001, whereas the allotment letter is dated 17.03.2001. It is clearly seen that 30% amount has not been deposited within 30 days as was required under the directions given in the allotment letter. Similarly, all the instalments were not deposited as per the schedule. Instalments upto 23.08.2006 have only been deposited.  Certain instalments definitely were  due as in all 14 instalments were to be deposited.

8.      After the order of the State Commission, the complainant sent a letter dated 13.07.2009 to the Greater Noida Authority and Greater Noida Authority replied to this letter vide its letter dated 07.08.2009. In fact the complainant has not filed copy of the letter dated 13.07.2009 sent by him to the Greater Noida Authority.  However, it is gathered from the reply of Greater Noida Authority that some letter dated 13.07.2009 was sent by the petitioner/complainant.  From the reply of the Greater Noida Authority, it is also clear that this letter was written by the complainant for executing the lease deed as per the order passed by the District Forum dated 18.03.2009 in Complaint No.344 of 2007.  It means that on one hand the petitioner approached the opposite party for compliance of the order of the District Forum, but on the other hand he preferred a revision petition before this Commission. 

9.      In the revision petition, this Commission is only required to see the illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission.  Therefore, at this stage, this Commission would not like to take cognizance of the letter dated 07.08.2009 of the Authority as the same is part of the communication made after the order of the State Commission.  A perusal of the prayers made in the complaint shows that the main prayer was for handing over of the possession of the shop and execution of its lease deed.  Both these reliefs were granted by the District Forum.  It is not clear as to why the complainant preferred appeal against this order.  The State Commission has already dismissed the appeal.  As the order of the State Commission is based on correct appreciation of facts and law, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission.  The main reliefs prayed in the complaint have already been granted by the District Forum, hence, I do not find merit in the revision petition.  Accordingly, the Revision Petition No.3843 of 2009 is dismissed.  Now the complainant/petitioner may seek execution of the order dated 18.03.2009 of the District Forum which has become final if the complainant is not satisfied with the response of the Authority on compliance of the order of the District Forum.