DATE OF FILING                    :     24-06-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      23-07-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     25-06-2014.

Sri Sunil Kumar Sircar,

son of late Sasanka Sh. Sircar,

residing at Sri  Aurobindo Road, P.O. Santragachi,

P.S. Jagacha, District – Howrah,

carrying his business as Honesty at

13, Sastry Narendra Nath Ganguly  Road, P.O. Santragachi,

P.S.  Shibpur, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711104.-------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      Smt. Bani Mondal,

wife of Sri Siddheswar Mondal,

residing at 112/19A, Mahatma Gandhi  Road,

Haridevpur, Kolkata – 82.

2.      Miss. Rani Das,

daughter of late Monilal Das,

residing at 14, Sastri Narendra Nath  Ganguly Road,

P.O. Santragachi, P.S. Shibpur, District –Howrah,

PIN  – 711104.

3.      M/S. Carewell Properties,

a  partnership firm governed by the

Partnership Act, 1932, having its registered office at

 registered office at 254/3/1, Panchanantala  Road,

P.S. & District – Howrah,

4.      Sri Pradip Kumar Singh,

son of late Narad  Singh,

residing at 254/3/1, Panchanantala Road,

P.S. & District – Howrah.-----------------------------------------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 execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant after receiving the sale proceeds @ Rs. 1100/- per sq. ft. and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 7 lakhs for causing physical and mental harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs as the o.ps. in spite of repeated requests did not execute the sale deed with respect to the suit shop room.   

2.               The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in the  written version contended interalia that the possession of the suit shop room was delivered to the complainant though he is still retaining the old shop room provided to him for temporary use.

3.        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      :

4.               Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainant is in possession of the suit flat. Admittedly the complainant got the flat from the allocated share of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2. Admittedly the complainant has not yet delivered the temporary accommodation to the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 who are the land owners. Admittedly the complainant was primarily a tenant under the o.p. nos. 1 & 2. Admittedly the complainant withheld the rental payable to the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 for approximately three years.

5.               The main grievance of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 is that the possession of the flat was delivered to the complainant by the o.p. nos. 3 & 4 behind their back though the flat was from the allocated share of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2. Whatever be the internecine dispute between the promoter and land owners, it is now settled fact that the complainant was delivered possession of the flat.  Such possession  has in fact, no validity in the eye of law unless it is registered in favour of the complainant.  

6.               We are, therefore, of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed subject to the payment of the rental dues payable to the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 towards the additional accommodation for last three years and also subject to the delivery of possession of this accommodation to the o.p. no. 1 & 2. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 208 of 2013 ( HDF 208 of 2013 )  be and the same is decreed on contest as against the o.ps. with costs.  

      The O.Ps. be directed to execute and register proper sale deed din respect of the suit flat within  30 days from the date of this order subject to the delivery of possession of the existing accommodation and payment of rental dues to the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 by the complainant as assessed by the o.ps.

      The complainant is entitled to a litigation costs of Rs. 2,000/- ( Rupees Two thousand ) from all the o.ps.

      No order as to 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.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.