Hon’ble Mrs. Soma Bhattacharjee, Member
CC/629/2018 has been filed by Rajesh Kr. Shaw and Anr. against Ranjit Poddar and others u/s 17 of C.P. Act, 1986 in a matter of housing dispute.
The gist of the case is as follows:
The deceased father of the complainant Rajesh Kr. Shaw was a lawful tenant at premises no. 53 A Paik Para Row, P.S. Chitpur, Kolkata 700037 under the tenancy of Amarendra Kr. Mondal and Samarendra Kr. Mondal the flat measuring about 650 sq. ft. on the ground floor of the said premises. He paid rent regularly to the said landlord. In the year 2012 the said landlords transfer the said premises in favour of OP nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 and Smt. Swapna Ghosh. On receiving the intimation of change of landlords the father ofthe complainant no. 1 started paying monthly rent @ Rs. 1100/- to the present landlords. Smt. Swapna Ghosh sold her undivided share in favour of Smt. Rupa Mitra being OP no. 4. The father of the complainant no. 1 lastly paid rent to the present landlord i.e. the OPs for the month of March, 2015, after which he expired. Since April, 2015 Srinath Shaw the present complainant started paying rent to the landlords in respect of the scheduled flat situated on 53 A Pike Para Row, Kol 37.
The OPs decided to construct a new building upon the said premises. They requested all the tenants of the said building including complainant no. 1 to provide No Objection Certificate for the purpose of obtaining sanctioned building plan and also assured all the tenants to rehabilitate them in the newly constructed building after construction was complete.
Accordingly the OPs entered into a registered Agreement for Sale on 10th June, 2015 with the complainants for rehabilitation cum sale one flat 650 sq. ft. super built up area on the ground floor of the newly constructed building situated at 53A Paik Para Row, Kol 37 against payment of the cost of construction as consideration for sale of the said flat for an amount of Rs. 5,20,000/-. The complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- as part consideration to the OPs. In this agreement the OPs are described as VENDORS and complainant no. 1 as PURCHASER. It was specifically mentioned in the said agreement that the OPs shall rehabilitate and deliver and cause to deliver a Flat for an area of 650 sq. ft. to the complainant on the ground floor North Western side at and for a nominal cost of Rs. 5,20,000/-being the cost of the construction within the specified period of time morefully and particularly mentioned in the Para “V” sub- Para “ii” under Clause “Unit Construction” of the said Registered Agreement and the time period are specifically mentioned in Part IV of Third Schedule to the said agreement.
According to the said Agreement for Sale the OPs were to arrange alternate accommodation for the complainants and they would bear the monthly accommodation charges till handing over possession of the schedule flat to the complainants.
Accordingly the complainants handed over possession of their existing tenanted portion to the OPs and were shifted to one alternate accommodation. Since execution of the agreement for sale the OPs paid the rent for the alternate accommodation till October, 2017. The complainants visited the site and found that the building was ready for possession. They requested vide a letter dt. 11.12.2017 the OPs to receive the balance consideration amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- from them and to handover possession and execute and register the sale deed in their favour. The OPs did not do so and they also stopped paying rent for alternate accommodation since November, 2017.
By a legal notice dt. 11.12.2017 the complainant no. 1 requested the OPs to handover vacant possession of the said flat on receipt of the balance consideration money from him. Cause of action arose on this date and the complainant filed CC/629/2018. OP nos. 1 to 7 appeared, 1 to 6 filed W.V. denying allegations of the complainant. Op no. 8 was expunged. Complainant filed evidence on affidavit. OP nos. 1 to 6 filed questionnaire. OP nos. 1 to 6 failed to adduce evidence when opportunity was given to them. They also failed to appear on the date fixed for final hearing.
On consideration of the submission of the Ld. Counsel of the complainants and perusal of the evidence and W.V, and other documents filed, it is evident that the complainants are consumers within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 of the OPs. The non delivery of the services as agreed under the agreement for sale tantamount to gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence the complainants are entitled to relief as prayed for.
The CC/629/2018 therefore succeeds and allowed on contest.
1. The Opposite Parties 1 to 6 are jointly and severally directed to handover possession, execute and register the deed of conveyance of the scheduled flat as per agreement for sale dt. 10.06.2015 on receipt of the balance consideration amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- from the complainants within 3 months of the date of order.
2. The Opposite Party nos. 1 to 6 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for harassment to the complainants within 3 months.
3. The Opposite Party nos. 1 to 6 are jointly and severally directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainants within 3 months.
If the Opposite Party nos. 1 to 6 fail to comply with the final order, the complainants will be at liberty to put the order into execution.
Free plain copies be delivered to all the parties.
CC/629/2018 is disposed of accordingly.
