The case of the complainant is that complainant entered into an agreement with Op which was registered on 22.2.2008 . As per agreement the oP shall construct building on B schedule property and total consideration money for purchase of the B schedule mentioned flat was Rs.10,308/- only and complainant paid Rs.5,000/-. It was also in the agreement that the Op cannot construct any construction work of their flats till the completion of the flat mentioned in the B schedule property of the agreement. The Op have not done construction work of B schedule property for which the complainant suffered mental agony for non completion of the shop room together with the flat mentioned in the B schedule as well as non execution and non registration of sale deed by the oP in favour of the complainant. The oP has done construction work inspite of construction of B schedule property for which the complainant has lodged FIR. The complainant raised objection against the oP . It is also case of the complainant that Op has already delivered the possession of the B schedule property in favour of the petitioner. It is also complainant’s case that complainant entered into an agreement with Op for second floor flat measuring 643 sq.ft. The Op made only the room without cemented floor, plaster on the wall of
the construction etc. As the complainant did not get the B schedule property as per agreement so this case has been instituted by the complainant.
Op has filed Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. It is the case of the oP that , Op purchased the A schedule and B schedule property from the original owner. That property was under tenant including complainant and others. The complainant made conspiracy with other tenants and prevented Op from making construction. The complainant had one shop room in the B schedule property . Under pressure of the complainant including others, the op entered into an agreement with complainant for giving the shop room and other flat of area 643 sq.ft. The price of the shop room as per was much higher . The property was of value of Rs.2,57,700/- . The complainant did not pay single farther to the Op and there was no talk of Bina Patra and price was settled at Rs.10,308/- . It is also stated that agreement dated 22.2.2008 has already expired and the agreement is time barred. It is also case of the oP that the complainant illegally trespassed into B schedule premises before its completion and he is making obstruction unnecessarily and due to such obstruction by the complainant it was not possible for the OP to make works for completion and for this Op is not liable. There was relationship landlord and tenant between the complainant and Op. It is the specific case of the Op that it is unlawful for a tenant to claim any consideration money as a condition of relinquishment of tenancy as such . Complainant cannot seek any relief. The price of the B schedule property i.e. shop is now Rs.6,82,000/- but the complainant is willing to grab the property by Rs.10,308/-. Hence the complaint should be dismissed.
The complainant filed the Binapatra, Evidence in chief and WNA on the Op filed Evidence in chief and WNA.
POINTS FOR DECISION :
- Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.
The contention of the agreement is that the complainant is the tenant for 50 years in the suit property. He proposed to purchase one 2nd floor flat measuring 705 sq.ft. for which agreement was done. Consideration price of the flat was fixed at Rs.70,500/-. Consideration money was paid Rs.1,000/-. The time laid down in the agreement was six months within which the complainant shall get the shop in dispute. In evidence in chief he has stated his case. This case was originally filed by Manik Santra. After death of Manik Santra , the present four complainants were substituted. OP also stated that the Op did not mention the Deed number in respect of which the petitioners/complainants are claiming Specific Performance and as such the agreement and schedule differs . Op was also further stated in the Written version as well
as in argument that this case is barred by Section 14(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act debars a tenant from claiming any consideration or benefit from the landlord on the ground of vacating possession. But in this instant case the complainant is claiming the flat for a mere
70,500/- that is much lower than the prevailing market value. As per endorsement from the office of ADSR, Singur dated 22.2.2008 the market value was Rs.3,94,800/-. This point has been raised by the OP. The complainant also filed this case after expiry of six months from the date of agreement. Accordingly, in Written Notes of Argument, the Op strongly opposed the case of the complainant in the above mentioned point. It is also argued that there is no material in the record to establish the fact that the complainant Manik Santra, since deceased had established his tenancy and surrender of tenancy to the oPs. The complainant cannot claim any other status unless and until tenancy has been lawfully terminated and a principle that once a tenant always a tenant. Op also stated that the document was obtained by fraud , coercion without exchange of consideration as such the said agreement is wholly void and illegal and also barred by law. The price of the flat is much higher than Rs.12,69,000/- . The Op cited some principles of law (1) M/s Wallarea Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Navita Rustodi (2) Chhanda Choudhuri –Vs- Kailaspati Chakaraborty (3) Dr. Arjun Chandra Bhowal –Vs- Lumxi Township Ltd & Ors. And (4) Biswabandhu Saha & Another –Vs- M/s Laxmi Township Ltd & Ors. (5) State Bank of India –Vs- M/s B.S.Agricultural Industries (1) .
We have heard the arguments of both sides and applied mind of principle of law laid down in the above cited cases . It is admitted position that complainant has filed this case beyond the time period as laid down in the Consumer Protection Act. Agreement was registered on
22.2.2008 . Time was laid down six months. This case has been filed on 18.10.2012 i.e. much later than this time laid down in the agreement. It is also admitted that complainant was a tenant . Complainant being tenant bound by the principle laid down in law Section 14(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Fact remains that complainant has got possession of the shop i.e. B schedule property. On the premises above, and as per material before us we are of
strong conviction that complainant’s case is not maintainable on the ground of time barred and barred by the Section 14(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and other grounds laid down in the record. Hence it is –
Ordered
That the C.C. no. 145 of 2012 be and the same is dismissed on contest but not order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
