DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.35/2021
Smt. Madhu Sablania
W/o Sh. A.K. Sablania
R/o D-100, 1st Floor, Saket,
New Delhi- 110017
….Complainant
Versus
Aerens Goldsouk International Ltd.
Gold Souk, Block-C, Sector-43,
Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurugram,
Haryana- 122002
Super Property Maintenance Pvt. Ltd.
Regd. Office: Plot No. 1, LSC,
Sharda Niketan, Pitampura,
New Delhi- 110034
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 27.01.2021
Date of Order : 26.05.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
It is the case of the complainant that the complainant vide application dated 06.10.2005 applied for allotment of an office space measuring super area of 351 square at 4th floor with temporary space no. FOF-8 in Gold Souk situated at plot no. 2, Jagatpura road, near Jawahar circle, Jaipur. It is stated that she was issued an allotment letter dated 06.10.2005 confirming this place. It is further stated that she was informed by the OP in the year 2010 that furnishing work can be carried in the said property. When the complainant visited the said property, it was found that the construction work was still in progress and it was not complete for taking any commercial activity. It is the case of the complainant that OP No.1 told them that the property has been modified and got some papers signed from the complainant which she later to came to know was ‘Letter of Intent’ (hereinafter referred to as LOI). By virtue of this LOI, the space was rented out to coaching centre namely Abhigyan Sarokar Pvt Ltd. It is also stated both in the complaint as well as their own legal notice dated 03.09.2020 that in December, 2017, 03 cheques of Rs.35,100/-, Rs.96,525/- & Rs.82,926 were received by the complainant towards rentals.
Before the case can be considered into the merits of this case, preliminary issue has to be taken into consideration. Foremost, the property in question is an office space, which was purchased by the Complainant as per her own averments in complaint, legal notice and documents along with complaint and is in receipt of rental cheques. This preliminary issue was not convincingly answered by the counsel for the Complainant; therefore, this Commission is of the view that the complaint ought to be rejected in limine as it relates to a commercial property wherein it is not even the case of the complainant that the same was meant for her livelihood.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
