Kerala

Idukki

CC/29/2020

Satheesh NK - Complainant(s)

Versus

kerala State Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jun 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 7.2.2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  17^th  day of  June, 2022

Present :

                   SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                  PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.29/2020

     Between

Complainant                                       :   Satheesh N.K.,

                                                               Parayolickal House,

                                                               Thoppippala P.O.,

                                                               Kozhimala.      

     (By Adv: K.B. Selvam)

        And

Opposite Party                                    :   The Executive Engineer,

                                                               Kerala State Housing Board,

                                                               Idukki Division,

                                                               Kattappana.

     (By Adv: K.P. Anu and K.M. Sanu)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

1. Complaint  filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986.  Complaint averments are briefly narrated hereunder :

 

          Complainant is running a tailoring shop in room No.F 51 owned by opposite party, namely, the Kerala State Housing Board, which is represented by its Executive Engineer, in this case.  Building was taken on rent from 2004 onwards.  Father of complainant had suffered a stroke and is laid up.  Therefore complainant   was unable to pay rent in time. Complainant had continued in the premises with his business and duly remitted rent until 2017.  Thereafter due to financial contingencies, he was unable to pay rent.  His son is also having serious health problems.  Opposite party is demanding Rs.2,83,000/- as rent arrears.  Complainant submits that the amount claimed is not correct.  Complainant expects                                                                                                          (cont....2)

• 2  -

that the amount will be written off by opposite party.  He had applied for part payment, but opposite party was not inclined to accept part payments.  Nor had  he given statement of arrears.  Though complainant had requested more time to clear arrears and in fact an oral assent was also obtained, contrary to the assurance given, complainant received a notice dated 22.1.2020 from opposite party asking him to vacate the shop room on or before 11.2.2020.  Complainant has suffered irreparable mental agony owing to this.  He seeks a direction against opposite party to give him more time to clear the arrears and also a direction to reduce the rent which had accrued during floods.  He prays for an award of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

 

          2.  Opposite party had appeared and filed written version.  Its case is briefly discussed hereunder :

 

          According to opposite party, petition is not maintainable in law or upon facts.  Complainant has not complied the direction by this Commission for deposit of Rs.20,000/- in the Interlocutory Application filed by him.  He had taken room No.F 51 having an area of 197 square feet in the Kattappana Commercial cum Office Complex of the Board, on 25.7.2003 at monthly rent of Rs.1576/-.  Copy of agreement was submitted along with written version.  As per the terms of agreement, it is to be renewed every year.  Till date agreement has not been renewed by complainant.  Complainant is occupying the premises unauthorisedly from 10.8.2015 onwards and  rent has not been paid by him.  He has not  paid rent in time, even for the 1^st month on 25.7.2003, the date on which room was assigned to him. It was paid only on 11.11.2003.  On 27.4.2004, notice was issued to complainant demanding rent arrears of Rs.8,300/-  plus  amount mentioned in Ext.R1.  He never used to pay rent in time.  On 15.4.2005, he had paid Rs.3,500/-.  After 10 months, he had made a further payment of Rs.2,000/- on 28.2.2006.  Thereafter, there were huge arrears in 2011.  Hence eviction notice was issued on 24.2.2011.  Complainant had then sought for 2 months time, which was allowed.  On 23.1.2014, arrears totalled to Rs.1,27,533/-.  Upon application by complainant, he was allowed to continue in the premises by paying Rs.30,000/- towards arrears.  Remaining amount was written off, upon his application.  On 15.7.2015, eviction notice was given since arrears had mounted to Rs.97,288/-.  Complainant had again given a representation to the Chairman, promising to pay 30% of the arrears and seeking 10 months time to pay balance.  This was allowed.  On 4.1.2016, complainant gave a cheque for Rs.50,000/-, in accordance with the accommodation granted  to  him.   However,  cheque  was  returned  due  to  insufficiency of funds.                                                                                                    (cont...3)

• 3  -

On 24.8.2017, next eviction notice was given since arrears were of Rs.1,58,314/-.  Due to political interference, complainant could not be evicted.  Hence an eviction notice was again issued on 1.2.2018.  It was decided to evict the complainant on 22.2.2018.  Arrears on that date come to Rs.1,78,962/-.  Complainant had then filed CC No.24/2018 before this Commission and that case was dismissed on 31.10.2018.  Since arrears were not cleared, notice was issued on 5.8.2019 in Form I and notice in Form II was issued on 31.8.3019.  Thereafter another notice was given seeking eviction on 4.12.2019 after giving sufficient time to complainant for vacating the premises.  Complainant had refused to vacate the premises on 4.12.2019.   Report was filed by the officials regarding this, before higher authorities of Board.  A notice was issued again to  complainant informing him that eviction will be  on 11.2.2020.  All these would go to show that complainant is occupying the premises without payment of rent arrears. That apart he had taken the shop room for doing business of paper mart and art work.  However, he is doing tailoring work which is contrary to the conditions mentioned in rent agreement.  No promise was given to the complainant that arrears of rent will be written off by the Board. Nor was any assurance given that he will be given more time. As on 29.2.2020, a sum of Rs.3,09,326/- is due from the complainant towards arrears of rent.  Statement of arrears was given to complainant.  Due to non-payment of arrears, Board is put to huge financial loss.  There is no deficiency in service from the side of Board or its employees.  Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.  Same is to be dismissed with cost.

 

          3.  After filing of written version, case was posted for evidence after affording sufficient opportunity to complainant to take steps.  Despite repeated posting for evidence, complainant has not turned up.  Nor has he produced any witnesses.   Hence his evidence was closed.  Counsel appearing for opposite party submitted that opposite party has no evidence as complainant has not tendered any evidence.  Hence evidence was closed.  Heard.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?

2)  Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?

3)  Final Order and cost ?

 

4. Point Nos. 1 and 2 are considered together :

 

          Upon a perusal of complaint, it can be seen that there is no specific or concrete  evidence regarding  deficiency  in  service  on  the  part  of  Board  or its                                                                                                          (cont....4)

• 4  -

employees.  Complaint itself discloses that the complainant was not regular in paying rent.  It is also evident from complaint that rent of the building is in arrears.  Without paying rent, complainant cannot continue in the premises.  There is nothing to show that complainant is entitled for reduction in the rate of rent or for writing off arrears due from him.  If at all, any deduction or accommodation was given,  it was not as of right ,but purely  discretionary and as per rules of the Board.  Complainant cannot claim such benefits as of right.  Written version discloses that complainant was a chronic defaulter.  Huge arrear of rent is due from him.  Therefore we find that complainant is not entitled to get the rent of the building reduced or to get more time for clearing of arrears.  He is not entitled for any compensation as such for mental agony if any, suffered by him, for no fault of Board.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

5.  Point No.3 :

 

          In view of our findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, we further find that complaint is only to be dismissed and that to with costs of Rs.5000/- payable to opposite party. 

 

Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- payable by complainant to opposite party, within a period of 30 days from today, failing which Board will be entitled to realise the cost ordered in accordance with law.

 

        Pronounced by this Commission on this the  17^th  day of June, 2022

 

                                                                             Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                             Sd/-

 SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                   Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

Appendix : Nil.

                                                                         Forwarded by Order,

 

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR