The Ld. Counsel for the Complainant is present. The OP-1 and 2 are present through the Ld. Advocate and the OP-3 is also present through the Ld. Counsel. Today is fixed for hearing on the MA-10/2021 filed by the OP-3 praying for expunging their names and addresses from the cause title of the complaint. Today is also fixed for filing written version by the OP-1 and. By filing an application the said OPs pray time for filing written version. Upon considering the postal track reports filed by the Complainant it is noticed by us that since receipt of the notices till date statutory period for filing written version will be over, if further time is allowed. Hence we are not inclined to allow the time prayer of the OP-1 and 2. Therefore the complaint will run exparte against the OP-1 and 2.

We have taken up the MA being no10/2021 for hearing and disposal.

In the application it is stated by the OP-3 that being the land owner of the property he has no liability with the prayer as made out by the Complainant in the petition of complaint. The Complainant did not hire any service from him by making payment of any consideration amount. The Complainant paid the consideration amount to the OP-1 and 2. Moreover it was settled that the Complainant will purchase the questioned flat from the developer’s allocation, not from the allocation of this land owner. In the prayer portion the Complainant did not seek for registration of the sale deed of the concerned flat, rather the Complainant has sought for refund of the paid amount along with interest component. Therefore liability for refund of the amount will be casted upon the shoulder of the person, who received the same. As the OP-3 did not receive any amount from the Complainant towards the consideration amount or whatever it may be, then he has no liability to refund him any amount. Due to this reason the Complainant has made him party unnecessarily in this proceeding with a view to harass him and to grab some money from him through an illegal manner. According to the OP-3 if this application is not allowed, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury and prayer is made by the OP-3 for allowing this application.

The Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has raised vehement objection orally against this application stating that there was development agreement by and between the OP-1, 2 and 3 i.e. being the developers and the landowners to erect the building and the landowner gave power of attorney to the developers. Subsequently an agreement for sale was executed by and between the landowner, developers and the Complainant being the intending purchaser. Though the Complainant had agreed to purchase flat from the developer’s allocation and paid the consideration amount to the developers, but as the tripartite agreement for sale was executed, the land owner cannot avoid his liability at this juncture. According to the Complainant the MA being no-10/2021 filed by the OP-3 is liable to be dismissed.

We have heard argument on the MA at length. In our view though the payment was made by the Complainant to the OP-1 and 2, inspite of this there is some liability of the OP-3 in this respect which he cannot bypass as the tripartite agreement for sale was executed by and between the Complainant-Developers and the Land owner.

In this respect we may mention to the Reportable judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Housing Board vs. M/s. Parasvanath Developers private Limited & Another, passed in the Civil Appeal no-10748/2016 (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), dated 17.12.2019, wherein it has been held that in case held that in case of Tripartite Agreement i.e. builder-landowner-purchaser, if compensation be imposed on the builder due to deficiency in service, then proportionate compensation should be imposed on the land owner.

Having regard to the abovementioned judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court we are of the opinion that the prayer for expunging the name of the OP-3 being the land owner cannot be allowed on the ground that in the case in hand also tripartite agreement for sale was executed.

Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the MA being no-10/2021 is hereby dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances there is no order as to cost.

Fix 14.06.2021 for adducing evidence by the Complainant.