Today is fixed for admission hearing and Ld. Lawyer for the complainant is present.  Admission matter is heard.

          Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted by showing the agreement for sale that as per agreement the OPs are liable to execute the sale deed when they have received Rs.10,000/- as earnest money from the complainant even though there is no further conditions for such sale but fact remains OPs intended to sale one office room having carpet area of 120 sq. ft. on the ground floor so, it is no doubt come under the purview of the definition of housing construction when owner of the property handed over possession of the premises in question after construction of the building and landlord is bound to handover possession after receipt of possession certificate and when complainant is already in possession then complainant is entitled to get the relief and in view of the condition as laid down in the agreement complainant is a consumer to the landlord so there is sufficient ground to admit this complaint.

          Considering argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant and also considering the complaint including the agreement to sale dated 06-04-2006 it is found that complainant is a tenant under Sisir Das and Amita Roy the first party of the agreement and they are the landlord and landlady of the complainant who is second party of the said agreement.

          From the said agreement it is clear Goutam Bhattacharyya is a tenant under the landlord and landlady Sisir Das and Amita Roy at a monthly payment of rent of Rs.150/- for one room for office use of the complainant with common bathroom, privy etc. at ground floor of premises No.5, Ultadanga Main Road, P.S. Ultandanga, Kolkata – 700 004 and carpet are of the said office room is 120 sq. ft..  Further it is proved from the agreement to sale that that agreement was made at the time of shifting of the complainant from that room which was part and parcel of the old building and as consideration and for future protection of the tenant landlord and landlady with such condition gave such benefit to the tenant to purchase the said office room in the new constructed building after his replacement @Rs.500/- per sq. ft. and in that case super-built area would be measuring 120 sq. ft. etc. and as per consideration of his shifting from the old building and to avoid any dispute in between the landlord and the tenant i.e. between the complainant and OPs1 and 2 this agreement was executed.  But there was no other clause so it is clear that this agreement to sale was sale simplicitor in between the landlord and the tenant and in that agreement developer is not a party and fact remains Rs.10,000/- was received by the landlord as advanced money on 06-03-2006 after that in the meantime long period passed and complainant got the possession in the newly constructed building as a tenant and tenancy right of the complainant has not yet been terminated and for which till now complainant is enjoying the property as tenant and his tenancy has not been terminated as yet at the same time the agreement was executed long back in the year 2006 but this present complaint is filed on 28-02-2014 i.e. long after 8 years but cause of action or dissatisfaction if any arose long back and further it is found that complainant paid some money in the name of Rig Construction and some  money to Sisir Das but no amount has been further paid by the complainant to Amita Roy.  So, considering all the above facts and circumstances we are convinced to hold that it is a contract in between the complainant the tenant and the OP landlords and that agreement was the consideration to protect the interest of the tenant at the time of shifting of the complainant tenant to fixed place as fixed by the OP for construction of the new building for reconstruction by the developer but there is no proof that landlord and the developer themselves entered into agreement to sale and frame body of the agreement we are convinced that complainant is still tenant under the OPs.  Their tenancy has not been terminated but they are replaced in their tenanted office room by the landlord already long back but complainant wants to get a registered sale deed as per such agreement then it is clear that it is a simple transaction for sale and so there isno question of getting any further service and landlords are not service provider to the complainant/tenant for which we are confirmed that it is a sale simplicitor and fact remains the present claim is also barred by limitation at the same time complainant is not a consumer for which we are inclined to say that there is no legally justified ground to admit this complaint for which the complaint is not admitted.

          Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint be and the same being rejected.