This is a complaint made by one Smt. Mamani Neogi against M. G. Construction and three others, praying for a direction upon the OPs to complete the remaining work as per specification of the Agreement for Sale and to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance regarding the property described under Second Schedule after payment of balance consideration money by her etc.

Facts, in brief, are that one Mr. Nirmal Kumar Das and Smt. Bani Das were the absolute joint owners in respect of a bastu land measuring more or less 3 Cottachs 2 Chittaks lying at Mouza Purba Barisha, P.S. Thakurpukur under Khatian No. 1665 comprised in dag no. 685.  The said Nirmal Kumar Das and Bani Das jointly sold and transferred the said bastu land in favour of Smt. Rita Chakraborty and Subrata Chakraborty, the OP Nos. 3 & 4, respectively.  Subsequently, with a view to construct a new 3-storied building, the OP Nos. 3&4 entered into a Development Agreement with the Developer, i.e., the OP Nos. 1&2 on 10-10-2012.  The OP Nos. 3&4 also executed a general Power of Attorney in favour of the OP No. 2 on 22-01-2013.  After obtaining sanctioned building plan, the OP Nos. 1&2 started construction of the building.  The Complainant agreed to purchase one flat from the Developer’s allocation on the Northern side of ground floor, measuring a super built up area of 650 sq. ft. consisting of two bed rooms, one dining-cum-kitchen, one toilet and one WC at a total consideration of Rs. 16,25,000/- and so an Agreement for Sale was executed and registered on 02-04-2014 between the Complainant and OPs.  In the said Agreement for Sale, OP Nos. 1&2 undertook to complete the said flat and deliver possession thereof in favour of the Complainant within eight months from the date of said Agreement for Sale, i.e., on or before 01-12-2014.  Complainant from time to time, within the stipulated period, altogether paid a sum of Rs. 11,50,000/- to the OPs.  However, allegedly, the OP Nos. 1&2, despite receiving said amount from the Complainant, has not completed the construction work.  Complainant urged the OPs to do the needful on several occasions, but to no avail.  So, this case.

OP Nos. 2 contested the case by filing WV, wherein he denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It is stated that the present case is not maintainable as there is no relation in between the Complainant and the OP No. 1.  It is further stated that on 02-04-2014, no Agreement for Sale was executed in between the Complainant and the OP No. 1 to the effect that OP No. 1 would deliver possession of the flat within eight months of signing of the purported Agreement for Sale.  It is stated that OP No. 2 is ready to do the registration work as per agreement dated 02-04-2014 after completion of payment as per agreement.

OP Nos. 3&4 also contested the case and submitted WV denying all the material allegations of the complaint.  It is stated that they have no knowledge about the financial transactions that took place in between the Complainant and the OP Nos. 1&2 since neither the said transactions took place in presence of these OPs nor they put their signatures on the purported Agreement for Sale as witness.  Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of this case against them.

Decision with reasons

Complainant filed Affidavit in Chief, wherein she reiterated the facts stated in the complaint petition.  She also answered to the questionnaire put forth from the side of the OP No. 2. 

The main point for consideration is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for by her.

The first relief prayed for by the Complainant is for a direction upon the OPs to complete the remaining work as per specification of the Agreement for Sale dated 02-04-2014. There is no dispute as to the fact that a registered Agreement for Sale was executed in between the Complainant and OP No. 2 on 02-04-2014 in terms of which, the OP No. 2 was under obligation to deliver khas vacant possession of the flat in question within eight months from the date of execution of said agreement.  As it appears, the OP No. 2 failed to honour the said deadline and this fact clearly indicates gross deficiency in service on his part.  At the same time, it is also a fact that Complainant has not paid the entire consideration money to the OP No. 2.

We, therefore, deem it proper to direct OP No. 2 to handover khas vacant possession of the flat in question within four months from this date subject to payment of rest of the consideration money by the Complainant.

However, since OP Nos. 3&4 were not party to the said Agreement for Sale, no liability can be ascribed upon them. 

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/104/2015 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against OP No. 2 and ex parte against OP No. 1 and dismissed on contest against OP Nos. 3&4.  OP no. 2 is directed to handover peaceful khas possession of the flat in question and execute & register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant within four months of this order subject to payment of rest of the consideration money by the Complainant.