This appeal is directed against the dismissal order of the Ld. Dakshin Dinajpur D.C.D.R.F dated 02.12.2020 in CC No. 50 of 2020. The fact of the case in brief is that the appellant Sudipta Lahiry being an owner of a land comprised in plot No 231 of Khatian No 350 within Mouja, Jod Teor of Dakshin Dijanjpur has leased out the said property to Reliance Telecom Infra Ltd. For construction of Mobile tower by Mobile Company in the lease property on the basis of rent by which he had to maintain family and parents and the said lease agreement was executed between the Complainant/Appellant and one Abhijit Kar the constituted attorney of Reliance Telecom Infra ltd. On 21.06.2007 accordingly the Infra Company installed Antenna and Tower, BTS equipment over the lease property and the term of lease was fixed for 240 months and the rent per month of the lease was settled as Rs. 4,000/- and there was also stipulated that monthly rent shall be increased 10% on expiry of every three years and the Infra Company used to pay the said rent through the Bank cheque or by account transfer and in this way the respondent company used to pay the rent till the month of December 2015 and thereafter, they have stopped the paying of payment of rents and arrear of rents at the rate of Rs. 4,840/- Per-month has become due and for which the Complainant/Appellant had to face some sort of troubles to continue his livelihood of himself and his family members. He, has urged by repeated demand notice to the lessee for payment of outstanding rents and to continue the current rents but they have not paid any heed and in this way, they have violated the conditions of lease agreement and balance amount of due was Rs. 3,13,390/- and such irregular payment and stop payment on the part of the lessee appeared to him as deficiency of service and for that reason he has claimed damaged compensation etc. From the lessee and registered the Consumer Complaint against Reliance Telecom Infra Ltd., Reliance Jio Infra Pvt. Ltd., Reliance Infra Tele Ltd. And constituted attorney and against the State Bank of India. The Consumer Complaint was placed for haring on admission point and at the time of admission on 02.12.2020. Ld. Forum after hearing came into conclusion that Complainant was not a consumer under O.P No. 1 to 3 as per Section 2(1)(d) of C.P Act, 1986 as because the Complainant was not either a buyer of the goods for consideration nor he hired or availed any service for consideration from O.P Nos. 1 to 3. And the Complainant was a lesser and O.P Nos. 1 to 3 were lessee and apart from it the money transaction or the rental of the Antenna or Tower in between the parties has been made only for commercial purposes. And for that reason, the Consumer Complaint was dismissed without its admission. Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that order of Ld. Forum was based in misconception of law and there was deficiency of service on the part of the lessee which could not properly ascertained by the Ld. Forum and for that reason the Complainant/Appellant by filing the appeal has prayed for set aside of the said order and to admit the Consumer Complaint for a full-length hearing of the case. The appeal was registered against General Manger of Reliance Telecom Infra Ltd. Authorized signatory of Reliance Jio Infra Pvt. Ltd. Branch Manager Reliance Infra Ltd., Salt lake, Branch Manager of State Bank of India kamarpara as  the respondents in this case who has received the notice of appeal in due course. The respondent No. 4 State Bank of India, Kamarpara Branch and respondent No. 2 Reliance Jio Infra Pvt. Ltd. Has contested the case through their Ld. Advocates and Reliance Infra Pvt. Ltd by a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P Code intended to implead themselves as Sumit Digital Infrastructure Ltd. Erstwhile, Reliance Jio Infra Pvt. Ltd. after, the change of the name of the company.  So, the respondent No. 1 formally known as Jio Infra Pvt. Ltd. Is to be treated as Sumit Digital Infra Pvt. Ltd. As respondent No. 2 of this case. Respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 did not contest the appeal. All the contesting parties conducted the hearing through their Ld. Advocates.

                                                                            Decision with reasons

During the course of hearing the Ld. Advocate of the State Bank 0f India that is respondent No. 4 mentioned that in the instant case the Bank has nothing to do as because the lease was held between the Complainant and the Infra Company and only the rent was paid through the Bank account of the Complainant which was maintained in the State Bank of India, Kamarpara Branch and no relief was sought for against the State Bank of India Kamarpara Branch by the Complainant. Ld. Advocate of the respondent No. 2 did not furnish any Written Note of Arguments. Ld. Advocate of respondent No. 2 mentions that it was a case between leaser and lessee and the allegation is that that lessee has violated the condition of lease and did not pay the rents in due time and there was no relation between the parties to the case as seller or purchaser or service taker or service giver. And for that reason, this dispute is not related to Consumer dispute and for that reason Ld. Forum has rightly adjudicated the matter and dismissed the complaint on the initial stage at the point of admission hearing. Ld. Advocate of the appellant Mr. Anish Das mentioned by virtue of lease agreement the Complainant used to earn some money as rent for allowing the respondent company to construct a Mobile Tower thereon and the company was compelled to pay the rents of such lease hold property but they have not paid the said rent intentionally and such default of paying rent is to be treated a deficiency of service on the part of the Infra Company. He, further argued the rented amount comes from the lease in the only source of income of the appellant by which he was providing his livelihood and maintaining his family members including his old age parents and due to non-payment of the rent since January 2016, the Complainant has been now suffering a lot and also sustaining unbearable financial crisis and apprehends that in future he would fall into starvation. And in this way the respondent company has committed a breach of trust and violated the terms and condition of the contract and such breach of trust and violation of contract are to be treated as deficiency of service towards the appellant/complainant and such deficiency of service comes within the purview of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and the leaser appellant should be treated as bonafide consumer.

After, hearing the valuable arguments canvassed before the Bench it is reflected from the umbrella of the case that there was an agreement of lease, though unregistered, between the complainant/appellant in the one hand and the Infra Company on the other hand and subsequently the lessee has violated the condition of lease by not paying the rent which was fixed as the conditions of the lease. Now, the question is whether such violation on the part of the lessee to be treated as deficiency of service towards a bonafide consumer.? The answer is negative as because here there is no relationship between the leaser and the lessee as consumer or purchaser of a material object, he is neither a buyer of any item for a consideration nor he hired or availed of any service for consideration from the O.P Nos. 1 to 3. The relationship in this case is strictly confined to the leaser and the lessee and if any lessee violates the provisions of lease the only sustainable claim of the looser of the contract can enjoy the claim for damage by registering any damage suit before a Competent Court of territorial jurisdiction. And the Consumer Forum is not empowered to entertain such claim of damage or to entertain any claim for arrear of rent and apparently the instant dispute between the leaser and lessee does not come within the umbrella of Consumer dispute. And for that reason, Ld. Forum has rightly dismissed the Consumer Complaint at the stage of admission. And no infirmity is detected in the observation of Ld. Forum. Thus, the appeal devoids any merit.

                                                                        Hence, it’s ordered

That the instant appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against respondent Nos. 2 & 4 and dismissed Ex-parte against respondent Nos. 1&3.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. D.C.D.R.C., Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat by email.