Order no. 16 dated 28.7.15
Case of the complainant Sri Baidyanath Dutta and Ors in short is that there was an agreement dated 6.8.2010 for development of a building with an arrangement for one common bathroom for the complainants in the premises no.49A Netaji Subhas Avenue, Serampur, Hooghly and accordingly a master plan was prepared . In terms of the said agreement the complainants secured possession in the month of May, 2013 . It is alleged by them that no common bath room has been constructed by the Ops. Stating the allegation the complainants came before us with the prayer for giving direction to the Ops for construction of the common bathroom in the ground floor with payment of compensation of Rs.10.0 lakhs etc.
OP contested the case by filing Written version stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action as for common bath room along with delivery of possession of their respective rooms was made upon the complainants. Thus, the case should be dismissed.
Upon the case of the both parties the followings issues are framed :
ISSUES
Whether the case is maintainable in its present form ?
Is there any cause of action in favour of the prayer made by the complainants?
Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief in terms of petition of complaint ?
DECISION WITH REASON :
All the issues are taken up together as they are interlinked each other.
The complainant Baidyanath Dutta for himself and other complainants argued that the delivery of the possession of the shop rooms in terms of the agreement was delivered . But no common bath room has been constructed by the ops. So necessary order may be passed against them.
Ld. Advocate for the Ops made reply that the statements and the claim of the complainants are not correct and the same is baseless. The construction of a common bath room and its delivery has already been made in favour of the complainants. In this connection, it is pointed out before us that the place of common bath room might have not been done according to their choice. This preference of the site for construction has not been disclosed in the case of the complainants. According to the agreement for development of the property , the common bath room for the complainants was normally constructed and as such there should not be any grievance . Thus, the complainants suffers from cause of action in filing the present case.
We have carefully considered the case and it appears that there is no challenge to the specific case of the oP that the common bath room has already been delivered along with the to the complainants. A photograph of the common bath room is also filed in order to support the affidavit to that effect. So, it is evident that there is no cause of action for presentation of the instant case . Thus, the Issues are held and decided in favour of the Opposite party.
In view of the findings and observation , the case is liable to be dismissed.
Hence ordered
That the C.C. no. 114 of 2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
