No. 7/04.06.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. P. Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 through Mr. Barun Prasad, the Ld. Advocate are present.  This is an appeal challenging the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by D.C.D.R.F., Darjeeling in Consumer Complaint No. 23/D/09 whereby the complaint was allowed partly on contest against O.P. Nos. 1, 5 & 6 and ex parte against the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 and case is dismissed against O.P. Nos. 4 and 7 to 15.  Other directions have also been given in the impugned order.  Mr. Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant contended that the case of the Complainant as made in the complaint itself does not permit continuation of the proceeding before a Forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such proceedings are not maintainable under the law.  We have perused the entire complaint and we find that the Complainant carrying a hotel business in the disputed premises entered into a lease agreement with O.Ps for a period of nine years from 2007 to 2016 for opening branch office of the O.Ps in Darjeeling.  It is alleged that during their stay the O.Ps caused certain damages and assured renovation also was not done.  When the O.Ps started removing their office tools from the leased out premises without informing the Complainants or settling their accounts and without waiting for notice period to be over, the present complaint was filed claiming amounts under various heads including restoration cost of dismantled rooms, reinstatement of wiring and electrical fittings, breakage and damage of furniture and fixtures, 50% of the registration fee of lease agreement and so on and so forth.  Considering the entire scope of the complaint we are convinced that such complaint in respect of such grievances of the Complainants carrying on business with regard to their property allotting the same on lease to the O.Ps is not maintainable before the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Barun Prasad, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent supported the impugned order but is unable to show us as to how the complaint is maintainable.

In the circumstances we are of the opinion that the complaint itself is not maintainable and is dismissed.  The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.  We make it clear that we have not decided any of the contentions in the complaint on merit.  The Complainant is at liberty to take up appropriate proceeding in accordance with law and this judgement will not stand in the way.