Dt. of filing – 10/09/2018

Dt. of Judgement – 04/09/2019

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President

          This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant namely Panchu Gopal Mondal under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties namely 1) Maharani Naskar 2) Sri Shankar Naskar 3) Sri Shib Shankar Naskar 4) M/s Sky Rise Construction and 5) Sri Sukdeb Saha, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

          Case of the Complainant in short is that Complainant was a monthly tenant in respect of 300 square feet shop room under the Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 who are the owner of the land measuring more or less 3 Cottahs having many shop rooms at 415, Roy Nagar, P.O. Bansdroni, Kolkata-700 070. Opposite Party No.4 is the developer. A development agreement was entered into between the developer and the Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 for raising new building (G+3) in the said land. Owners and the developer entered into an agreement dated 21/01/2009 with the Complainant in respect of total 180 square feet (9’5” X 18’9”) on the north western side of the said premises at valuation of Rs.22,000/- and ultimately it was settled at Rs.10,000/- as consideration money to be paid by the Complainant to the owners and the Opposite Party No.4 agreed to bear all the registration cost of the said shop room in favour of the Complainant.

          So as per the said agreement dated 21/01/2009 Complainant vacated and handover possession of the said tenanted room in favour of the Opposite Party No.4 on 2/06/2009. Opposite Party No.4 in terms of the agreement paid shifting charges of Rs.5,000/- per month initially  but subsequently failed to comply the said terms and condition. It was agreed that the complete shop room will be handed over to the Complainant within two years but the Opposite Party failed to hand over the possession of the same within the time limit as agreed. However, subsequently although the possession of the shop room has been handed over but inspite of repeated request sale deed has not been executed in favour of the Complainant. So a notice was sent by the Complainant through his Ld. Advocate on 6/04/2018 to the Opposite Parties but all in vain. So the present complaint has been filed praying for directing the Opposite Parties to register the sale deed in favour of the Complainant, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- , litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.78,000/- towards delay in delivery of possession.

          Complainant has annexed with the complaint petition, impugned agreement entered into between the parties, copy of the letter of possession dated 15/7/2010 and the copy of the notice sent by the Complainant through his Ld. Advocate on 6/04/2018.

          On perusal of the record it appears that the notice was sent to the Opposite Parties but inspite of the service Opposite Parties did not take any step and so the case came up for ex-parte hearing vide order dated 19/03/2019.

          So the only point requires determination is:

          Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

          It is claimed by the Complainant that he was the monthly tenant in respect of shop room measuring 300 square feet under Opposite Party No. 1 to 3. A development agreement was entered into by the said landlord being Opposite Party No.1 to 3 with Opposite Party No.4 and consequent to the same an agreement was also entered into with the Complainant dated 21/01/2009 by Opposite Party No.1 to 4. On perusal of the impugned agreement as well as the letter of possession dated 15/09/2010 it is apparent that the Complainant was a tenant in respect of the shop room as claimed by him and ultimately after the construction he has been handed over the possession of shop room being no.1 in the ground floor front side at premises no. 415, Roy Nagar, P.O. Bansdroni. It is the claim of the Complainant that even though he has been handed over the possession but the Deed of Conveyance as agreed has not been executed in his favour by the Opposite Parties. On a careful scrutiny of agreement entered into between the parties, it appears that it has been specifically agreed between the parties as stated in paragraph 9 of the agreement that the landlords/owners who are liable to give an amount of Rs.22,000/- to the Complainant would not pay the same and instead Complainant would pay Rs.10,000/- and the Opposite Parties would register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant. So there is categorical recital in the said agreement that the Deed of Conveyance has to be executed. The amount of Rs.22,000/- as well as handing over of possession of the tenanted room by the Complainant, may be considered as passing of the consideration, towards the transaction between the parties. If that be so, than as the Deed of Conveyance as per terms of agreement has not been executed in favour of the Complainant in respect of shop room as agreed, Complainant is entitled to execution and registration of the deed in his favour. However, in the given situation of the case since possession of the shop room was already handed over to the Complainant on 15/7/2010 we find no justification to allow compensation as prayed for.

Hence,

                                    ORDERED

CC/545/2018 is allowed ex-parte. Opposite Parties are directed to execute and register Deed of Conveyance in respect of shop room as per agreement in favour of Complainant within 3(Three) months from the date of this order. Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.12,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant within the aforesaid period of 3(Three) months.