HON’BLE SHRI. SUDIP NIYOGI, PRESIDENT FACTS The case of the complainant in short is that she entered into an agreement with OP No.1 on 22.03.2013 in which it was agreed that in consideration of a plot of land measuring about 14 chittacks 15 sq. ft. absolutely owned by the complainant. It was also agreed between them that OP No.1 would provide trade licence in respect of her grocery shop measuring about 48 sq. ft. OP No.1 would provide him a portion of 600 Sq. ft. on the ground floor and 350 sq. ft. on the fourth floor of a newly constructed building on the land to the complainant. But the OP No.1 did not give her the promised accommodation as agreed upon them. So, complainant tried to resolve the matter and filed a complaint with the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Kolkata, Eastern, Sub-urban Regional Office and requested the OP No.1 to honour his promise, but nothing was done. But the matter was not resolved. So, complainant filed this case before this Commission, seeking several reliefs as mentioned in the petition of the complaint. OP No.1 did not contest the case by making appearance, so, the instant case was heard ex parte against him. However, OP No.2 appeared and filed a W/V contending that no agreement was made between them and the complainant. So, the instant complaint should be dismissed as against him. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION Is the Complainant is entitled to relief(s) as prayed for in this case? FINDINGS Both the complainant and OP No.2 have filed their respective evidence on affidavit, exchanged of questionnaires and replies thereto. Complainant also filed several documents in support of her contention. Amongst the documents we find, there is one deed of gift dated 18.05.2009 between Uma Rani Sarkar and the complainant by which said Uma Rani Sarkar who happened to be the mother of the complainant is found to have transferred her share in their property at 5/1 Kakurgachi Road, P.S. Phoolbagan in favour of her daughter Tara Rani Sarkar, the complainant herein, so the complainant is found to have acquired the land measuring about 14 chittacks 16 sq. ft. in the property as mentioned in Scheduled A to the said agreement. Another document dated 22.03.2013, made between Mr. Prosenjit Bardhan (OP No.1) and the complainant in which it was agreed between them that complainant would transfer her land and premises at 5/1 Kakurgachi Road, P.S. Phoolbagan in favour of 1st party i.e. OP No.1, and thereafter, the 1st party along with OP No.2 jointly would construct new building on the aforesaid land which was amalgamated with the land of the complainant adjoining the land of the 1st party. It was also agreed that after completion of the said land, the complainant would be given a super built up area of 600 sq. ft. including staircase on the ground floor and another super built up area of the 350 sq. ft. on the fourth floor backside of the aforesaid premises in a habitable condition. It is further found in the said agreement that OP No.2 Prosenjit Dutta would pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant at the initial stage. But it is found that said Prosenjit Dutta was not made a party to this Commission. Another documents namely, Development Power of Attorney made between OP No.1 & 2 ( Prosenjit Dutta & Keya Dutta) who represented M/s Priyanshu Construction for completion of the project. Now, we find, no agreement is there between the complainant and OP No.2 in respect of the construction of the building, though the name Prosenjit Dutta has been mentioned in the agreement between complainant and OP No.1. But OP No.2 was not made a party as we have already pointed out. Therefore, we are not in a position to issue any direction upon OP No.2 for due compliance of the agreement made between complainant and OP No.1. As already stated OP No.1 did not appear to contest this case and ventilate his contention, in respect of the contentions and allegations of the complainant. According to complainant, that is the project of the amalgamated land has already been completed with the accommodation as stipulated not being given to the complainant by the OPs, particularly, OP No.1, who actually had agreed to allot a particular portion to the complainant by virtue of an agreement dated 22.03.2013. On consideration of the evidence as produced by the parties, we think complainant is to get the accommodation as agreed in the agreement dated 22.03.2013 between them. (Though in the prayer, complainant sought a direction for provision a grocery shop measuring about 48 sq. ft. to her, but that claim cannot be entertained as there is no sufficient evidence.) So, necessary direction should be given to the OP No.1 for due compliance of the terms of the settlement. This apart, complainant should also be entitled to get cost of litigation. Accordingly the complainant has succeeded in proving her case. Hence it is, ORDERED The instant complaint be and the same is allowed ex parte against OP No.1 and the same is dismissed on contest against OP No.2. OP No.1 is directed to hand over the possession of the area in the ground floor and also in the fourth floor in the newly constructed building as per the deed of agreement entered into between the parties on 22.03.2013 by way of a valid deed of conveyance to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this Order, at the cost of the complainant. The cost of execution and registration of the deed of conveyance to be borne by the complainant. OP No.1 is to pay cost of Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand only) as litigation cost to the complainant. If the Order is not complied within the aforesaid period, the complainant shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. | 
