​Order No.  2  dt.  27/12/2017

The case of the complainant is that he entered into an agreement for lease with one Subol Paul in respect of a flat situated at premises no16/1/H/9, Biplabi Barin Ghosh Sarani,Kolkata -700067. As per the agreement the total consideration of the leasehold property was Rs. 8,50,000/-. Out of the said amount the complainant paid Rs.6,50,000/-.Subsiquently whenever the complainant found that the opposite party was avoiding to hand over the flat in question to the complainant, he demanded money from the op, who refunded a sum of Rs 50,000/-. The complainant further demanded the amount but the o.p did not abide by the request of the complainant for which the complainant filed this case U/S 12 of C.P Act.

In order to substantiate the allegation of the complainant the complainant filed the agreement for lease. On perusal of the said agreement it appears that the complainant being a thika tenant claimed to be the owner of the land where by the construction was going to be made and the flat would be constructed thereon. It is an admitted fact that the property is situated within Kolkata and the superior right of the land has vested to the state of West Bengal and  a thika tenant can never be an owner of the thika property and any pucca construction cannot be made by the thika tenant. Since the agreement entered into between the parties has got no legal sanctity therefore on the terms of the said agreement one cannot invoke his right as per the said agreement.

The ld advocate for the complainant in support of his contention relied on the judgements as reported in 1994 AIR 787 ( Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K Gupta),Bangalore Development Authority Vs Syndicate Bank decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court Appeal ( Civil)5462 of 2002, Ghazibad Development Authority Vs Balbir Singh decided in case no Appeal (Civil) 7173 of 2002 and the civil appeal no 21740 of 2007 decide by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22^nd September 2010.

On perusal of those judgements we find that the case in hand is totally different from the facts & circumstances of those cases thereby we hold that those judgements are not applicable in this case.We are astonished to find how a thika tenant can become the owner of the land whenever the ownership of the land has vested to the state.

Having regard to the said fact, the case filed by the complainant is a misconceived one and the same is dismissed in limini.