This is a complaint made by one Sri Swapan Das, 607, Purbachal Road, P.S.-Garfa, Dist.-South 24-Parganas, against Sri Surojit Ghosh, proprietor of M/s Monika Construction, OP No.1, Sri Prabir Paul, Sri Barul Paul and Smt. Kalpana Karmakar, OP No.2 to 4, praying for direction upon OPs to deliver possession of the common area, roof top of the building after removing illegal un-authorised construction, direction upon the OP No.1 to repair the water seepage and the damp patch in the  external wall, direction upon the OP No.1 to handover the copy of certificates of sewerage, drainage and water connection and also for handing-over the copy of Completion Certificate and for completing the grip of the staircase and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.20,000/- for unfair trade practice, litigation cost Rs.18,000/- and 8% interest from the date of registration of the flat.

            Facts in brief are that one Jyotsna Paul was the owner of the land measuring 3 cottahs, 11 chittaks and 20 sq.ft. She entered into an agreement for development with M/s Monika Construction. OP No.1with the intention to sell the flat to the Complainant entered into an agreement for sale and thereafter made deed of conveyance in respect of flat having area of 420 sq.ft.
This deed of agreement was executed on 19.5.2014 after registration of the deed of conveyance Jyotsna Paul died leaving two sons viz. Prabir Paul and Barun Paul and daughter Kalpana Karmakar. OP No.1 delivered possession of the flat to the Complainant. However, OP did not handed-over the Completion Certificate and subsequently Complainant found that there was certain deficiency in the work done by OP No.1 and so Complainant filed this case.

            On the basis of above facts complaint was admitted and notices were served upon the OPs. But, none of the OPs made appearance and so the case was heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons.

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein it was reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for by him. On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that the first relief which Complainant has sought for is a direction upon the OP to deliver possession of the common area of the roof on top of the building after removing the illegal and unauthorized construction.

            In this regard, on perusal of the conveyance deed it appears that there is no mention that roof is the part of common area and Complainant being one of the flat owners does not have any right to claim for the roof. Accordingly, this prayer cannot be allowed.

            Further, Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OP No.1 to repair the water seepage and damp patch. It appears from the record that OP No.1 made conveyance deed on 19.5.2014 and since then Complainant is enjoying the flat. So, it cannot be said that damp and water seepage is deficiency in service and it may be caused due to other reasons. Accordingly, we are of the view that this prayer cannot be allowed.

            Further, third prayer of Complainant is a direction upon OP No.1 to handover copy of the certificates for sewerage, drainage and water connection. We are astonished to note that in nowhere in the agreement of sale a builder is bound to give copy of certificate of seepage, water connection to the individual flat-owner. At best this can be handed-over to the Association, if any, for maintenance of the building. So, this prayer also cannot be allowed.

            Other prayer is for handing over of Completion certificate of the building. Two years have elapsed since Complainant is enjoying the flat by residing in that flat. Before registration or at the time of registration, Complainant did not think it proper to have Completion Certificate. Suddenly, Complainant woke up and wanted to have Completion Certificate. No reason is mentioned as to why this Completion Certificate is sought. Accordingly, this prayer cannot be allowed.

            Complainant has sought for completing grip of the staircase from the ground floor to the roof top. Complainant should have noted before registration which would have been better. But, at this stage after two years this prayer cannot be allowed.

            Since the main prayers cannot be allowed, Complainant is not entitled to compensation and litigation cost.

            Hence,

Ordered

            CC/210/2016 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.