In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4^th Floor, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.280/2010.

1)                   Sri Kali Prasad Paul,

            38, Nepal Bhattacharjee 1^st Lane, Kolkata-26.                                          ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   Partha Chakrabarty,

            7, Sahyog Flats, Dr. Kurein Enclave,

            Anand,  Gujrat – 388001.                                                                        ---------- Opposite Party

Present :           Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   29    Dated  06-12-2013

          The case of the complainant in short is that complainant entered into an agreement for purchasing a flat and the said agreement for sale was executed on 25.2.07. One Biplab Chakraborty represented o.p. as his power of attorney holder who signed and executed the agreement for sale acknowledging the receipts of money mentioned in the agreement for sale. The agreement for sale was duly executed and signed by the parties with a condition that o.p. will clear the due corporation taxes in respect of the schedule property. But o.p. did not clear the dues of corporation taxes and therefore complainant requested the o.p. for executing the deed of sale in favour of the complainant after clearing the dues of taxes, but o.p. did not pay any heed. O.p. and his men and agents are creating various trouble so the complainant compelled to file an application u/s 144 Cr.P.C. in the court of the Ld. Executive Magistrate at Alipore for restraining the o.p. and his men and agents. Complainant tried his best to purchase the property and requested the o.p. on various occasions but o.p. did not care and for various reasons complainant had to spend Rs.50,000/- for repairing the said flat. In the mean time the power of attorney holder Biplab Chakraborty died and the complainant compelled to contact the o.p. As the o.p. the owner of the property resides in Gujrat so there is a delay to file the instant case. Hence the complainant filed the instant application with the prayer for an order directing the o.p. to execute the sale of schedule property in favour of the complainant.

            O.p. filed their w/v. interalia denying all material allegations that complainant is not a consumer and the present dispute is not a consumer dispute. There is no specific cause of action in the instant case and no specific allegation has been made against the o.p. The complainant is a tenant of the disputed flat in question and is a habitual defaulter of making payment of regular rent to o.p. as per agreement. Not only that as per tenancy agreement the complainant shall bound to release the flat of o.p. unconditionally with immediate effect on and from 24.1.08. Instead of that complainant forcefully possess the flat of o.p. and filed the case. The said agreement for sale was not executed by and between the o.p. and the complainant, but the same was executed between the third party and the complainant. Moreover, the said agreement was executed on 25.2.07, but the consideration amount was paid on 20.7.06 and 30.11.06. So the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that there is an agreement between o.p. and the complainant but the agreement was signed by one Biplab Chakraborty. The agreement was signed on 25.2.07, but in the said agreement there is no signature of o.p. Moreover, from the documents it is evident that the present complainant is a tenant of o.p. No copy of power of attorney has been filed by complainant which would suggest that o.p. has given power of attorney to send Biplab Chakraborty to sign the agreement on behalf of the o.p. So this agreement is not a valid agreement. The agreement for purchase a flat from the owner does not come under the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986 since the alleged subject matter is of flat simplicitor which is completely beyond the scope and ambit of COPRA and cannot be adjudicated under C.P. Act, 1986. Therefore, this Forum has no scope to entertain the present case and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.