DATE OF FILING : 23-09-2011.
DATE OF S/R : 13-12-2011.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 04-12-2012.
Sri Dhanu Shaw,
son of late Babu Ram Shaw
of 21, Beharilal Chakraborty,
P.S. & District –Howrah---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Sri Sandeep Kr. Goenka.
2. Sri Rajib Kr. Goenka,
both o.p. nos. 1 & 2 sons of
late Swarmal Goenka of
5, Ram Gopal Smriti Ratna Lane,
P.O., P.S. & District – Howrah.
3. Rajes Gupta,
son of Sri Prokash Gupta,
of 23, Mahandra Nath Roy Lane,
P.O.,P.S. & District – Howrah.
4. Devendra Verma,
son of Sri Lakshman Show of
23, Mohendra Nath Roy Lane,
P.O., P.S. & District – Howrah.
PIN – 711101. -----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to execute the sale deed in respect of the flat as agreed upon measuring 601 sq. ft. and to pay compensation and litigation costs as the o.ps. in spite of the agreement dated 10-09-2001 did not execute the sale deed, nor did receive the balance amount.
2. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in their written version though admitted the agreement
with respect to a residential flat to the complainant measuring 601 sq. ft. in the ground floor at 21, Beharilal Chakraborty Lane, P.S. & District – Howrah, @ Rs. 150/- sq. ft. contended interalia that the complainant did not vacate the erstwhile position and created trouble during construction of the building and that the complainant demanded a flat measuring 1500 sq. ft. though the agreement was for 601 sq. ft.
3. The o.p. nos. 3 & 4 did not file any written version in spite of receipt
summons. So the case is heard ex parte against them.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the parties entered into an agreement for a residential flat measuring 601 sq. ft. @ Rs. 150/- per sq. ft. Accordingly the complainant who was the erstwhile tenant under the o.ps. in the same premises paid Rs. 30,151/- towards the earnest money which is admitted by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2. It is fact that the complainant in his prayer of the complaint prayed for a flat measuring 1500 sq. ft. in contravention to the measurement of the agreement. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 has no objection if the flat 601 sq. ft. is directed to be allotted to the complainant.
6. In view of the admission of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to a flat measuring 601 sq. ft. subject to the payment of the balance consideration money minus Rs. 30,151/- to be calculated @ Rs. 150/- per sq. ft. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 74 of 2011 ( HDF 74 of 2011 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and ex parte against the rest with costs.
The complainant be directed to pay the balance amount of consideration money to the o.ps. within one month from the date of this order and the o.ps. be directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the complainant after receiving the balance amount within 15 days from the receipt of the payment.
No order as to compensation.
The complainant is entitled to the litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- from the o.ps.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
