DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2024
Filed On: 31/07/2024
PRESENT:
Shri. D.B. Binu President
Shri. V. Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member
C.C. No. 948/2024
THE COMPLAINANT
George Raphael, S/o. Rapheal V.V, Vattoly House, Vijaya Nagar, Choondy, Asokapuram. Aluva Ernakulam P.O. Pin 683101.
V/s
OPPOSITE PARTY
Remadevi, W/o. Pankajakshan Pillai Kanjirankal Indus Veettil, Aroor Village, Cherthala Taluk Pin 688534
FINAL ORDER
D.B. Binu, President
1.A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant, a hotel worker aspiring to start his restaurant, entered into an agreement with Shelmi Paulus, who was operating Wonder Bite Bakers Food Court in Kutattai Village, Kotanchery Panchayat, Kerala. The lease Agreement was made on August 20, 2019, with an advance payment of ₹20,000 and a commitment to pay ₹12 lakh in three instalments. The understanding was that the existing lease agreement between Shelmi Paulus and the building owner, Ramadevi (the opposite party), would be transferred to the complainant to operate the restaurant.
On September 6, 2019, the complainant paid an additional advance of ₹1,50,000 to Ramadevi, expecting that a tenancy agreement would be signed within a month. However, the opposite party delayed signing the tenancy agreement until February 1, 2020, which prevented the complainant from obtaining the necessary licenses from the Panchayat to legally operate the restaurant. Despite this, the complainant paid ₹34,000 monthly rent in cash to the opposite party.
During this period, Panchayat authorities inspected the restaurant and halted its operations due to the absence of a license, further warning of fines. The complainant faced additional challenges due to an obstructed drainage system, which was essential for the restaurant’s functioning and obtaining the necessary licenses. Consequently, the complainant was forced to close the restaurant and bear the expenses, including salaries and other operational costs, from a bank loan taken for house construction.
The opposite party, acting with malice, further aggravated the situation by refusing to sign the tenancy agreement, which was crucial for obtaining legal documents such as Panchayat and GST licenses. The complainant alleges that the opposite party attempted to steal kitchen appliances and furniture worth over ₹12 lakh and threatened him with police involvement.
The complainant seeks compensation for the financial losses, mental stress, and defamation caused by the opposite party’s actions, totalling ₹19,25,600. The commission is requested to recover this amount from the opposite party.
2. Evidence
The complainant produced three documents along with the complaint before the commission:
- Copy of the Rent Agreement.
- Copy of the Agreement between Mrs. Shelmi and George Raphael.
- Copy of the Settlement made on 01.02.2020 with Witnesses’ Signatures.
On 13.08. 2024, The Commission issued an instruction to the Registry of the Commission to inform the complainant, who was present when the case was taken up for admission on 16th August 2024. The Commission heard the complainant's arguments, during which the complainant stated that the dispute pertains to a lease agreement and that a related case is currently pending in the Munsiff Court, Cherthala. The complainant also mentioned the intention to apply to withdraw the case. However, the complainant did not appear before the Commission thereafter. Consequently, the Commission adjourned the case to 24th August 2024 for passing an order.
The crux of the complaint revolves around the complainant's attempt to enter into a tenancy agreement with the opposite party to operate a restaurant. The complainant alleges that despite making substantial payments towards the lease, the opposite party failed to execute the tenancy agreement, thereby preventing the complainant from obtaining necessary licenses and operating his restaurant legally. The complainant seeks compensation for financial losses and mental agony amounting to ₹19,25,600.
The primary issue before the Commission is to determine whether the present complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and if the complainant qualifies as a "consumer" within the meaning of the Act, given that the dispute pertains to a tenancy agreement.
The Commission has carefully examined the complaint, the evidence produced, and the submissions made by the complainant.
As per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a "consumer" is defined as any person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for consideration. The key question here is whether the tenancy agreement and the actions of the opposite party fall within the ambit of "services" as defined under the Act.
In the present case, the dispute primarily concerns the non-execution of a tenancy agreement and the subsequent inability of the complainant to obtain licenses to operate his restaurant. The relationship between the parties is one of landlord and tenant, which is governed by related tenancy laws. Such a relationship is contractual and does not constitute "services" under the Consumer Protection Act.
The matters concerning tenancy, landlord-tenant disputes, and related contractual obligations do not fall within the jurisdiction of consumer commissions as they do not involve the provision of services.
The complainant's grievance arises out of a landlord-tenant relationship, which is contractual and does not involve the provision of any "service" as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The primary remedy for the complainant lies in civil court, not in a consumer forum.
Furthermore, the complainant has himself acknowledged that a related case is pending before the Munsiff Court, Cherthala, which further strengthens the view that the appropriate forum for adjudication of this dispute is a civil court.
In light of the above, the Commission is of the considered view that the present complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the complainant does not qualify as a "consumer" in this context. The dispute pertains to a tenancy agreement and is contractual, for which the appropriate remedy lies with the civil courts.
The complaint, C.C. No. 948/2024, is hereby dismissed for lack of maintainability under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
No Order as to Costs.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 29th day of August, 2024.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 948/2024
Order Date: 29/08/2024
