Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/487/2020

Tushar Walia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gupta Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amar Chand

18 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/487/2020
Date of Institution	:	27/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	18/04/2022

 

Tushar Walia son of Shri Ashok Walia, resident of House No.310/1, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Gupta Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. Baddi- Barotiwala Road, Near Fire Station, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan (HP) through its Directors.
2. Shri Subhash Gupta, Director, Gupta Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. Baddi-Barotiwala Road, Near Fire Station, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan (HP).
3. Smt.Prem Lata Gupta, Director, Gupta Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. Baddi-Barotiwala Road, Near Fire Station, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan (HP).
4. Mahender Kumar, Authorized Signatory, Gupta Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. Baddi-Barotiwala Road, Near Fire Station, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan (HP).

2^nd Address

     Mahender Kumar s/o Shri Panna Lal, R/o H-375A, Sunder Nagar, District Fatehabad (Haryana).

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Amar Chand, Counsel for complainant.
	:	OPs ex-parte.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      The long and short of the allegations are that the complainant intended to purchase a flat and came through the advertisement of OPs for one BHK units constructed at New Town, Solan, District Baddi (HP). As per complainant, the OPs disclosed the complainant that the units have already been constructed and will be completed within one month or so. The OPs also disclosed the total cost of the unit as Rs.9,00,000/- for a well furnished unit including the household articles and electronic gadgets as mentioned in the details of furniture/fixtures of 1 room set flat (Annexure C-2). The complainant submitted an application on 28.10.2018 with the OPs for the allotment of one unit of one room set and deposited the requisite amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to the OPs which was duly acknowledged by the OPs (Annexure C-3). As per complaint, in November, 2018, the OPs allotted one room set bearing House No.155/A with super area 289 sq. ft. located in Block A, the OPs executed a buyer agreement with the complainant (Annexure C-4). The Opposite Party No.3 put a proposal to the complainant for renting out the said unit to the developer itself and the complainant will get Rs.9,000/- per month as rent for the said unit. The complainant accepted the said proposal and a rent agreement dated 22.11.2018 to 22.10.2021 for three years (Annexure C-5). Thereafter, the OPs kept on making the payment of the rent for couple of months as assured and thereafter stopped making payment of rent. The complainant contacted the OPs and requested the release the arrears of rent but every time the OPs put of the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also requested OPs to execute and register the sale deed qua the said unit in favour of the complainant, but the OPs put off the matter on one pretext or the other. As per Annexure C-3, the OPs made in writing that the sale deed qua the said unit will be executed in favour of the complainant within one year otherwise they will refund the amount. The complainant served upon the OPs a legal notice on 13.08.2020 (Annexure C-6). The act of the OPs is indulged in unfair trade practice and negligence services. Hence this present consumer complaint.
2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OPs despite following proper procedure therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 25.02.2022.
3.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
5.     We have perused the Annexure C-5, annexed by the complainant which shows that the complainant is already a landlord of this property, and he was earning a rent of Rs.9,000/- per month from the tenant. On perusal of the grievance of the complainant, it is observed that the complainant did not get the rent for whole of the period of agreement rather he got the rent for the couple of months only. It is the admission on the part of complainant that they have requested to release of the arrears of rent, but every time the OPs put the matter on one pretext or the other and assured to clear the rent within short span of time.

         Hence, on perusal of the complainant it is very clear that the complaint mainly pertains to non-receipt of rent under the rent agreement and this Commission is not in a position to deal with the same. The complainant is advised to move to the appropriate Court of Law, dealing with recovery of rent. In view of above, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach appropriate Court of Law, dealing with recovery of rent.

6.     In view of the above factual position, we deem it appropriate to dismiss this complaint, with no order as to costs, with a liberty to the complainant to approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. We order accordingly.  The complaint stands dismissed in above terms.
7.     In terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industries (1995) 3 SCC 583, the Complainant may seek condonation of delay, if any, by moving an appropriate application before the appropriate Court/Forum, if so advised.
8.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
18/04/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
Ls	Member	Presiding Member