This complaint is made by one Swarna Kamal Banerjee, S/o Lt. S. N. Banerjee of 53E, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, Kolkata – 700 082 against Smt. Mitali Banerjee, praying for a direction upon the OP to remove the padlock of the main entrance of the schedule premises or allow the Complainant to remove the said padlock and also for damages to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 50,000/-.

Facts in brief are that the Complainant is one of the owners in respect of schedule property on the strength of a Deed of Conveyance.  Complainant has been exclusively enjoying the said flat and also the common areas along with other flat owners at the said plot of land.  OP and her men and agents have no right, title and interest over the schedule property since she was the developer and sold out all the flats of her share.  It is alleged that she is wrongfully trying to encroach a portion of the schedule property forcefully and trying to let it out to outsiders as parking space and thus, hampering the security and privacy of flat owners.  It is also alleged that flat owners requested the OP not to let out the common areas to any outsider, but the OP did not pay any heed to such requests.  OP, on 27-09-2015 (late night) put a padlock in the main gate of the premises and thus, caused inconvenience to the residents of the premises and the matter has been informed to the local police station in the form of a GD on 30-09-2015.  Finding no other alternative, the Complainant moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate u/s 144 CrPC.  Hence, this case.

OP filed written statement denying all the material allegations of the complaint.  It is denied that she is trying to encroach the common area.  Further, the OP has stated that she asked the Complainant to purchase the flat and car parking space in one sale deed, but he did not agree to it.  OP has made a registered Deed of Gift in respect of the car parking space to her son, who is not a third party.  Thus, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons

Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Chief, wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint against which the OP filed questionnaire and has made an attempt to establish that she has not made any attempt to encroach into the common area.  Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Reply.  OP also filed Affidavit-in-Chief, where she has stated the facts mentioned in the WV. 

Complainant has filed certain photographs to establish his allegation that the main entrance is blocked. However, on careful scrutiny of the same, we could not figure out as to whether the place where the padlock has been put is the main door or not.  Furthermore, it is indeed surprising that only the Complainant has come up with such allegation, while other co-flat owners have remained fence-sitters. 

It is also noteworthy that the Complainant became the owner of the flat in question by virtue of a registered Deed of Conveyance executed on 02-02-2010.  Since then, he is living in this flat, but no problem cropped up until 14-01-2016, when he filed this complaint.  Since the registered deed has already been executed, the cause of action ceased to exist and after long six years, the Complainant cannot file this complaint as the same is hit by explicit provision of the Consumer Protection Act which envisage a two years window from the date of cause of action to initiate a case. 

Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this complaint.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/18/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.