1.      Dipankar Das,

son of B.N. Das,

      2.   Smt. Paramita Das,

            w/o. Dipankar Das,

            residing at 73/5, Brindaban Mallick Lane,

            P.S. Bantra,  District – Howrah,

            PIN – 711 101.-------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

1.      Rizaul Haque,

son of late Anarul Haque,

of 24/2, Jwalapara Masjid Lane,

P.S. Howrah, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.

2.      Smt. Laxmi Rani Ghosh,

w/o. Biswanath  Ghosh,

of 19/2, Brindaban Mullcik Lane, P.O. Kadamtala,

P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 101.

3.      Md. Nasim,

son of Md. Hanif,

of 19, Jolapara Masjid,

P.S. & District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 101.-----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES..

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to  deliver possession of the ‘B’ schedule flat and to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant with respect to the same flat and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs together with litigation costs as the O.Ps. in spite of receiving Rs. 1,50,000/- out of  the total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- as per the agreement dated 27-09-2010 did not execute and deliver the same.

2.                  The o.p. nos. 1 & 3 in their written version contended interalia that the delay in

the construction work occurred for the disturbance of the landlord, O.P. no. 2 for her personal interest ; that there is no deficiency in service ; that the complaint should be dismissed. 

3.                  Notice was served against O.P. no. 2. But none appears  and files any written

version on behalf of O.P. no. 2. So the case was heard ex parte against O.P. no. 2. 

     4.    Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is   entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5. Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly there was an

agreement between the parties on 27-03-2010 for purchase of the ‘B’ schedule flat measuring 333.5 sq. ft. Pursuant to the agreement the complainant paid Rs. 4,02,,000/- out of the agreed amount and only Rs. 1,02,000/- is due. The argument on behalf of the O.P. that the progress of work remained suspended as land owner started disturbance, and as one 144 Cr. P. C.  case was lodged against him appears to us to be too fragile to merit acceptance. Because, the O.Ps. failed to show any document that he took action against the police who allegedly acted on behalf of the land owner. Even he did not file any writ to show his bonafide.

6.      Therefore, we are of the view that the O.P. is guilty of deficiency in service as he

did not deliver possession of the flat in question, and did not proceed to execute and register the deed of sale, in spite of receiving the major amount of consideration money.  This is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 167  of 2013 ( HDF  167 of 2013 )  be and the same is  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P.  nos. 1 and 3 and ex parte without costs against the O.P. no. 2.

      The O.P. nos. 1 & 3 be directed to execute and register the ‘B’ schedule flat to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order after receiving the balance amount from the complainant and the O.P. no. 2 be directed to be a confirming party to the execution of the deed.

      The complainant is entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- from the O.P nos. 1 & 3.

      No order as to  any compensation.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.