Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)          This appeal is filed by the original Complainant whose complaint has been dismissed with cost by the District Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, by its judgement dated 27.04.2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No.556/2007.

(2)          Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:

Complainant is a member of Shastrinagar Namrata Co-operative Housing Society, of which Opposite Party No.1 had given redevelopment work of the Society building to Respondent No.2 of Ayyappa Construction Company.  While carrying out development of redevelopment project there was an agreement between Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 on 17.04.2006.  As per that agreement, the Complainant was to get in the newly constructed building after redevelopment Flat of 443 sq.ft. within 15 months from the vacation of old tenement by the Complainant.  He vacated his own tenement on 18.04.2006 and even after lapse of 15 months from vacation of his earlier flat, the Opposite Party had not started construction of the new building.  According to Complainant as per agreement he had with Opposite Party No.2, Opposite Party No.2 agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.7,500/- and paid him advance of Rs.60,000/-.  Thereafter, he had paid for Leave and Licence fees Rs.6,000/- per month and from April, 2007 he has been paying the monthly compensation of Rs.7,500/- to the Complainant.  According to Complainant, the premises where he has been presently residing on temporary basis is not suitable to him and therefore, he is required to procure another premises for which he will have to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as deposit and Rs.12,000/-  per month as licence fees.  He demanded the said amount by sending letter to the Opposite Party, but, Opposite Party did not give any response.  He pleaded that he is an Advocate by profession.  He pleaded that, not providing proper and suitable accommodation amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  He has therefore filed consumer complaint, praying that the leave and licence compensation amount should be enhanced from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.12,000/- from August, 2007 and further amount of Rs.40,000/- should be paid to facilitate him to pay deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- to procure another tenement.  He also claimed Rs.25,000/- as cost of the proceeding.

(3)          Opposite Party No.1 filed written statement and denied allegations made by Complainant.  Opposite Party No.1 admitted that they had given existing building to Opposite Party No.2 for redevelopment, but, it is only Complainant along with one Shri Nalamwar, who are making false and frivolous complaints to various authorities and as such the project is being delayed.  There has been M.O.U. between the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 on 06.12.2005.  For procuring commencement certificate the permission was obtained from Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.  Most of the flat tenement holders had vacated their premises at the request of Opposite Party No.2, but, complainant and one Shri Nalamwar refused to give possession and since they had withheld possession of old tenement, Corporation was withholding sanction of layout and giving commencement certificate.  Mr.Nalamwar had even filed Suit No.3238/2007 in City Civil Court, but, ultimately, he was directed by the Court to give possession of his Flat on 19.12.2007.  Mr.Nalamwar went into High Court.  Thereafter, with the intervention of Hon’ble High Court the compromise took place and ultimately Corporation issued commencement certificate to Opposite Party No.2 and construction has been started from February,2008.  The Opposite Party No.2 assured all the flat tenement holders that within stipulated period they would give possession of new flats under the redevelopment scheme.  Society pleaded that Opposite Party No.2 was doing everything to meet stipulated date of giving possession of the flat on re-erection of the new building, but, Complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint just to extract monies.

(4)          Opposite Party No.2 also filed written statement and pleaded that complaint has been filed by Complainant and one Mr.Nalamwar to sabotage the redevelopment project being carried out by Opposite Party No.2.  Opposite Party No.2 pleaded that the Complainant is being given monthly leave and licence fees or compensation as per agreement entered into between him and Complainant.  Complainant cannot be heard to say that he should be paid Rs.12,000/- as leave and licence fees and Rs.1,00,000/- as deposit amount since he wanted to take more suitable premises.  That was contradictory to the terms and conditions of contract between him and Complainant and therefore, he pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost.

(5)          On the basis of Affidavits and documents placed on record, the Forum below gave finding that the complainant was being paid amount of Rs.7,500/- per month as per agreement between him and Opposite Party No.2/Respondent No.2.  The Respondent No.2 has also given him initially Rs.60,000/- by way of deposit.  This is in terms of agreement entered into between Complainant and Opposite Party No.2.  Now simply because Complainant wants to shift in another locality he cannot ask developer who is carrying out redevelopment on behalf of Society, that he should be paid enhanced monthly licence fees or further amount towards deposit because Complainant is desirous of taking some better premises on leave and licence basis. Forum below found that this enhancement sought by the Complainant was contrary to the agreement that had taken place between the Appellant Shri Nalamwar and Opposite Party No.2 Shri S.R. Shah, Proprietor of Ayyappa Construction Company.  The Forum below found that there cannot be consumer dispute in this behalf between the Complainant on one hand and Opposite Party No.2 on the other hand.  The Forum below, therefore, was pleased to dismiss the complaint with cost.  Aggrieved by this dismissal the original Complainant has filed this appeal.

(6)          We heard submissions of Complainant in person and Mr.P.K. Bhutkar, Secretary for Respondent No.1 and Mr.M.V. Kanade, Advocate for Respondent No.2. 

(7)          We are finding that order passed by the Forum below dismissing the complaint is just, proper and sustainable in law.  On the ground of redevelopment scheme opted for by Respondent No.1 Society of which Appellant is a Member, the flat holders in the old building have vacated the premises and they have been provided with alternate accommodation by Respondent No.2 and he is paying to every flat purchaser certain amount towards leave and licence fees as per agreement.  As per agreement he has also paid initial deposit amount to the Appellant and simply because Appellant is desirous of taking well furnished flat on leave licence that does not mean that builder shall go on paying leave and licence compensation at the enhanced rate.  What is agreed to between the parties under agreement is being properly adhered to by the Respondent No.2 and Complainant cannot be heard to say that the present accommodation he has hired on leave and licence basis is in slum area and that he wants to shift to some better area and for that better area he will have to pay more deposit and more licence fees and therefore, he wants enhanced deposit and monthly licence fees from Opposite Party No.2.  This was complaint filed in Forum below which was rightly negatived by the Forum below by reasoned order passed by it.  We do not want to repeat the same again, suffice it to say that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Complainant.  The appeal is devoid of any substance.  Hence, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

     (i)       Appeal stands dismissed.

    (ii)       No order as to costs.

  (iii)       Inform the parties accordingly.