DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK

                                                   Present: 1.Sri Ajoy Kr.Samal, President

                                                                  2.Sri Satrughna Samal, Member

                                                                  3.Miss Pratima Singh, Member

                         Dated the 31^st day of March,2013

 C.D.Case No.01 of 2014

Sri Snehasis Swain, aged about 41 years,

S/o: Bijay Keshari Swain,

Vill: Matha Sahi, PO: Bhadrak

PS:Bhadrak(T), Dist:Bhadrak

                                                    …………………………….. Complainant

             (Versus)

Sri Rajesh Taunk,

S/o: Late Kantilal Raghu,

Vill: Baralapokhari(Near Bhadrak Lodge),

PO:Charampa, PS/Dist:Bhadrak                                                               

                                                     …………………………………Opp.Party

For the Complainant: Sri A.K.Chand & Ors.,Advocates

For the Opp.Party      : Sri Ranjan Kr.Nayak &another, Advocates

Date of hearing         : 19.03.2014

Date of order             : 31.03.2014

SRI AJOY  KR. SAMAL, PRESIDENT:

1. The Complainant has filed this case against the O.P. claiming refund of security deposit and the expenses made towards developmental work of the shop house.
2. The  case of the Complainant in nut-shell is that he being an unemployed educated young man, in order to earn his livelihood  wanted to start  Restaurant business  over the shop house of O.P. Accordingly, Lease Agreement was executed with the O.P. on 23.08.2013 for payment of monthly rent @ Rs.4,000/-. The Complainant also deposited Rs.60,000/- towards security deposit with a condition that the said money would be refunded to the Complainant in case of termination of lease. Further, as per stipulation in the lease deed, the cost of the developmental work undertaken by the Complainant would be adjusted from the monthly rent. Accordingly, the Complainant spent Rs.18,500/- towards electrical fitting and back side development of roof. The Complainant took possession of the shop house on 01.09.2013 and due to financial crisis terminated the lease from 6^th December,2013 by giving 15 days notice u/s.106 of T.P.Act through his Advocate on 20.11.13 to repossess the shop house and to refund Rs.66,500/- by adjusting Rs.12,000/- towards three months rent.  In spite of receipt of legal notice the O.P. did not refund the security deposit which compelled the Complainant to file the present case claiming refund of security deposit besides compensation and litigation cost from the O.P.
3. O.P. filed written version challenging maintainability of the present complaint before this Forum.  The complaint petition does not make out a case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice adopted by O.P. The Complainant and the O.P entered into an agreement on 23.08.2013 with certain terms & conditions which are enforceable in the Civil Court only. The Civil Court has got the jurisdiction to decide which part of the agreement is not discharged by either party. It was agreed by the Complainant to take shop house for a period of 3 years w.e.f.01.09.2013 for a rent of Rs.4,000/- and monthly rent shall be paid by Complaint within 10^th day of succeeding month. The Complainant has not paid a single pie to the O.P. till 06.03.2014. The Complainant is falsely calming to have invested Rs.18,500/- for developmental work. The O.P. is ready and willing to refund the security deposit of Rs.60,000/- provided the Complainant make payment of Rs.1,44,000/- towards monthly rent. So the dispute has arisen between the Complainant and O.P. with regard to payment of monthly rent to O.P. amounting to Rs.1,44,000/- and after receipt of payment the O.P. shall return the security deposit. Hence, the O.P. prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. We have heard the Ld.Counsels appearing for both sides and perused the  documents filed by the Complainant such as  Xerox copy of Lease Deed executed on 23.08.13, legal notice dt.20.11.13, Xerox copy of  cash memo  dt.04.09.13 of M/s. Panigrahi Electronics, Bhadrak towards purchase of  electrical fittings amounting to Rs.13,151/- and Xerox copy of  reply  notice dt.04.12.13. At the outset, it is to be considered whether the present dispute is maintainable within the purview of the C.P.Act?  Admittedly, the O.P. had let out his shop room to Complainant for the purpose of restaurant on monthly rental basis and to this effect lease deed was executed in between the O.P. and the Complainant on 23.08.2013 with certain terms & conditions. The Complainant alleges that the O.P. is not refunding the security deposit and the cost of developmental work done in the shop premises after termination of lease by giving days notice u/s.106 of T.P.Act where as the O.P. demands 3 years rent from the Complainant as per lease deed executed between them. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that the dispute between the Complainant and O.P. is with regard to payment of house rent as per lease deed executed on 23.08.2013 and it is not a consumer dispute which can be adjudicated under the provisions of the C.P.Act. The decision of the Hon’ble State CDR Commission, Cuttack referred to by the Complainant in the case of Sankarlal Karnani Vs. Executive Officer, Balasore Municipality {Vol.34 (1994) OJD (C.P. & F.C.C.)} is not applicable to the present case as because there was no agreement executed between the parties but in the instant case lease agreement was executed between the parties on 23.08.13. If at all any terms & conditions of the lease agreement has been violated by either party, the same is enforceable before the Civil Court and not before this Forum. Accordingly, it is ordered:

                                                    O R D E R

                        In the result, the complaint is dismissed on contest against the O.P. as not maintainable. Parties to bear their own costs.

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of March,2013 under my hand and seal of the Forum.