Judgment : Dt.31.8.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President

This is a complaint made by one Sri Kush Mondal, son of Late Anil Mondal of Satbigha, Baganpara, Purba Putiary, P.O.- Gangapuri, P.S.- Regent Park, Kolkata-700 093 against – (1) Sri Krishnadu Halder of G-89, Baghajatin colony, P.S.-Patuli, P.O.-Baghajatin, Kolkata-700 086, OP No.1, (2) Sri Sankar Ganguly, OP No.2, (3) Sri Narayan Ganguly, OP No.3, (4) Sri Sanjay Ganguly, OP No.4 and (5) Smt. Rukmini Dutta, OP No.5 all are residents of 10/1, APC Park, Baghajatin, P.S.- Patuli, P.O.- Baghajatin, Kolkata-700 086, praying for a direction upon the O.P. to   hand over possession of the flat as well as the possession certificate and further direction to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that OP No.1 is a developer and resides at G-89, Baghajatin Colony, P.S.-Patuli, P.O.- Baghajatin, Kolkata-700 086. OP Nos.2 to 5 are the owners of the landed property mentioned in schedule 1. OP Nos.2 to 5 being desirous of constructing a multi storied building on the premises after demolishing the old structure, entrusted the OP No.1 for this work. Thereafter, OP Nos. 2 to 5 executed a development agreement and registered power of attorney empowering the OP No.1 to raise a multi storied building. The developer being interested to sale one flat entered into an agreement on 10.3.2016, described in schedule, for a consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and made a deed of conveyance on 16.8.2016. Though the sale was completed and deed of conveyance is in the possession of the Complainant’s bank and Complainant is paying EMI to the Bank. OPs did not discharge their obligations by handing over  possession of the said flat described in schedule of this complaint. Complainant apprehends that the OPs may transfer the flat. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OPs did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed a petition praying for treating the complaint as affidavit-in-chief and the prayer was allowed.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP for handing over possession of the flat in question. Further, on perusal of the complaint, it appears that in the schedule of the flat, it is mentioned that one flat measuring about 400 sq.ft. on first floor consisting one bed room, one kitchen, one dining space, one balcony and one toilet. However the specification of this in respect of what is located in the East, West, South and North is not mentioned.

            On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the agreement was entered between the alleged developer i.e. OP No.1 and the Complainant on 10.3.2016 and the registration of the flat was made just after five months. That means, the flat which was allegedly sold and purchased was a ready flat.

            Further, on perusal of deed of conveyance, it appears that the Complainant was handed over the possession of the flat before the registration of deed was made. This fact is clear that on perusal of the Xerox copy of the deed of conveyance.

            Accordingly, we are of the view that the prayer of the Complainant is not in accordance with law.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/235/2017 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.