HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS,PRESIDENT

       This appeal under section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act has been filed by one Anita Bhadra, a stranger to the complaint case filed at the instance of  the decree holder, Pratap Singh Surana against the OPs/judgment debtors questioning propriety of the order no. 21 dated 12-11-2018 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Baruipur in EA/04/2017.

The instant appeal has a long chequered history. A complaint case being CC/46/2010 was filed by the decree holder/Pratap Singh Surana and others where it was claimed that they purchased a flat on the 2^nd floor of the building at premises no. 250 Motilal Gupta Road, P.S.:- Haridevpur (previously P. S. Thakurpukur) for a consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand) and that complaint case was filed against the Developers/judgment debtors herein. The complaint case was filed against the said Developers before ld.D.C.D.R.F., as they did not hand over possession or did not execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant. That complaint case  was allowed and the Developers/judgment debtors were directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the decree holder and to hand over possession in his favour as well. The present appellant claimed that the Developers particularly Sankar Banerjee, the OP no. 2 executed one Agreement for Sale with the appellant, Anita Bhadra on 15-05-2009 and agreed to sell the flat in question measuring 750 sq. ft., super built up area in the back portion of the 2^nd floor of the G + 4 storied building together with undivided impartible proportionate share of land for a consideration of Rs. 8,50,000/- (Rupees eight lakh fifty thousand) and paid a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakh), got possession of the flat though no formal letter of possession was handed over to this appellant. The appellant requested the Developers to execute the deed of conveyance in her favour in respect of the flat in question but the Developer did not do so for which the appellant had to take recourse of the DCDRF, Kolkata Unit-III where she filed the complaint case being CC/463/2017, claiming those reliefs and in the said complaint case the owners of the property being the OPs no. 2 and 3 appeared before Ld. DCDRF filed written version and in the said written version they referred to the judgment and order dated 08-02-2013 passed by Ld. DCDRF at Baruipur and after knowing the fact that a judgment and order was passed in CC/46/2010, the appellant filed an application being MA/12/2018 in the execution proceeding which was rejected by Ld. DCDRF by an order dated 09-02-2018. Subsequently Ld. DCDRF, Baruipur passed an order on 19-09-2018 and fixed another date i.e. on 10-12-2018 for report regarding delivery of possession as the deed of conveyance has already been executed in favour of the respondent no. 1 herein. The appellant also claimed that she was in a possession all along but Ld. DCDRF while passing an order on 12-11-2018 in MA application  being 149 of 2018 directed the Officer-in-Charge of Haridevpur Police Station to give possession to the decree holder/respondent no. 1 herein by evicting the present appellant/occupant and that prompted her to take recourse of this Commission by preferring an appeal being A/929/2018.

       Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant in course of hearing drew our attention to the order no. 21 dated 12-11-2018 where the appellant was held as  ‘rank trespasser’ and directed the Police Authority of Haridevpur Police Station to render necessary police help for delivery of possession of the flat in question to the decree holder. Such submission of the appellant has been sharply reacted by Ld. Counsel for the decree holder, Pratap Singh Surana and another who prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal, the same being initiated at the instance of a third party to the proceeding who is forcibly occupying the flat, being instigated by the Developer/respondents no. 2 to 4.

       The factual aspects of the matter are not seriously disputed. The decree holder/respondent no. 1 agreed to purchase the flat in question and accordingly they entered into an agreement with the Developers to purchase such flat for a consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand) at one point of time but ultimately the decree holders were neither given possession of the flat nor the deed of conveyance was executed and registered in their favour and consequently the deed was executed and registered in favour of the decree holder through the authorized agent of the DCDRF and in pursuance of the said deed of conveyance the decree holder/respondent applied for delivery of possession by filing the execution proceeding being EA/04/2017. The present appellant who is admittedly in possession of the same filed another complaint case before Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata Unit-III, filed a suit before Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division, 7^th Court at Alipure being TS/382/2018 which was admittedly dismissed as withdrawn, as the appellant failed to get any interim order of injunction. The conduct of the appellant herein appears to us as ‘a collusion between the appellant and the respondents/Developers’ to frustrate the interest of the decree holder who after a long legal battle got the deed executed on the strength of an order passed by Ld. DCDRF in CC/46/2010 and it attained finality as no appeal was preferred against the said order from any corner. Now at the concluding stage, after the execution of the deed, the prayer of the decree holder cannot be refused rather we find reasons to believe that the decree holder should be protected from the unscrupulous traders/Developers who tried to deprive the bonafide consumer even by not complying the direction of the DCDRF and without preferring any appeal against the said order. In the back ground we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. DCDRF which has been called in question in this appeal and the same stands dismissed accordingly. Parties do bear their respective costs of Appeal.