Khem Chand Singhi,

9, Pollock Street, Room No. B-6,

Kolkata-700001.                                    …….complainant

-VS-

1) Prasanti Properties Pvt. Ltd. (COMPANY)

P-79, Lake, Road, Kolkata-700029.

2) Hemant Kothari (DIRECTOR),

220/2, Panditia Road Extension, Kolkata-700029.

Order No.   26    Dated  06/06/2016

       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased one flat measuring 2616 sq.ft. at Sahapur Main Road at a consideration price of Rs.22 lakhs and out of which Rs.5 lakh was paid to o.p. nos.1 and 2. After receiving the said consideration price o.p. communicated to the complainant towards letter of delivery of possession and whenever the complainant went to take possession he was resisted by Siddhant Residence Welfare Association. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed a case praying for refund of money and also for damages.

            The o.ps. did not contest the case by filing w/v and as such the case was heard ex parte against the o.ps.

            Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the petition of complaint and evidence of the complainant.   Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased the ground floor area which is shown in the sanctioned plan as car parking space. The o.p. no.3 there the flat owners of the said building and they have got no right title interest in respect of the said open car parking space. The complainant purchased the same on payment of consideration and took possession of the same but o.ps. interfered with the said possession for which complainant had to filed this case.

            Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant had to file a civil suit in a Civil Court and the said suit is still pending for disposal and order of injunction was granted whereby o.ps. have been restrained not to interfere with the possession of the complainant. Ld. lawyer for the complainant has prayed for an order so that the complainant can get the possession of the said property.

            Ld lawyer for the complainant submitted that since o.ps. had executed and registered the property in question complainant prayed for possession of the property. But in the petition of complaint there is no prayer for giving order to the possession of the property. Therefore, the said prayer cannot be allowed.

            Considering the submissions of the ld. lawyer for the complainant and on scrutiny of the entire materials on record it appears that the complainant in the complaint claimed that he purchased one flat by paying Rs.5 lakhs out of Rs.22 lakhs of total consideration and the flat owners of the apartment created problem regarding the possession of the said property. The complainant has filed this case praying for an order for refund of the money and also for mental harassment. The property has already been transferred in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the o.p. nos.1 and 2 cannot be given any direction for return of the money.

            In the course of argument ld. lawyer for the complainant has emphasized that the complainant had to file another civil suit and the said suit is pending before the Ld. Civil Judge Senior Division, Alipore whereby the self same points were raised and the complainant also prayed for declaration and injunction and for recovery of possession.

            Considering such background of the case we hold that the complainant has suppressed the fact that he took possession of the property which was purchased by him in respect of the ground floor and it is also an admitted fact that the complainant is a resident of Pollok Street, far away from the placed of his residence and therefore it was the intention of the complainant by purchasing the ground floor he wanted to induct the tenants for the purpose of keeping their vehicles in the said premises which can be used by them as garage and the said act on the part of the complainant undoubtedly an act of doing business by taking money from different persons. Therefore, we hold that as per Sec 2(1)(d) the complainant is not a consumer  and he will not be entitled to get any relief as sought for.

            Having regard to the circumstances of the case we hold that the case of the complainant must fail due to the object of the complainant to give tenants in respect of the ground floor for keeping vehicles to outsiders on a rental basis and accordingly, we hold that the case is not maintainable. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.269/2012 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.