1. Rajkumari Devi W/o Veer Pal Singh
2. Munni Devi W/o Arjun Pal R/o Shiv Colony, Khurja Junction Abrahimpur Junaindpur Urf Maujpur bulandshahr Smt. Munni Devi W/o Arjun Pal Singh R/o Naya Bans Tehsil khurja District Bulandshahr

                                           V/s

1. Sukhpal Singh S/o Kishori Singh Village Kaseri post office Ram Nagar Bheait Ps Gangiri District Aligarh
2. Risal Singh S/o Kishori Singh R/o village Kaseri post office Ram Nagar Bhelait PS Gangiri Tehsil Koil District Aligarh

CORAM

 Present:                                   

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot,Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for

1. Ops be directed to pay jointly and severally to the complainants an amount Rs. 2460000 with pendente lite and future interest @9% per annum.
2.  Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the compensation for harassment at Rs.100000.
3. Ops be directed to pay litigation expenses Rs.25000.

2. The Complainants have stated that the complainant no.1 had purchased one third area of the Khata no.69  Gata no. 197, 214 min., 216, 221, 248 ,249 ,250 ,253 , 256 min.,263, 268,269 ,270 and 273 through sale deed dated 9.1.2009. Complainant no.2 had purchased one third area of Khata no.69  Gata no. 199 and Gata no 274. Their names were mutated in the revenue record 1425-1430 F and they became Bhumidhar of the land since the date 28.9.2013. Complainants are co -sharers with others co-owners of the land. Complainants have got the area about 60 bighas of their shares mutually separated from the shares of other co- owners. Complainants had given their shares on annul lease from the month July, 2009 at annual rent Rs.2000 per bigha total Rs.120000 to the Ops or farming. Ops had entered into oral contract with the complainant in presence of witness Satyapal Singh S/o Ramswroop but they did not pay the amount and committed default and therefore lease was terminated in the month of July,2012. Ops acknowledged the liability to make payment of the outstanding amount Rs.360000 and entered into agreement in presence of aforesaid witness for further lease at annual rent Rs.3000 per beegha total Rs. 180000 with the assurance of committing no default in future in payment of the money but they did not pay the money and lease was terminated in the month of July, 2015. Ops became liable to make payment of the amount Rs. 540000 along with the amount Rs360000 total amount Rs.900000. In the month of July,2015 ops acknowledged the liability to make payment of Rs.900000 and entered into agreement in presence of aforesaid witness for further lease at annual rent Rs.4000 per beegha total Rs.240000 with assurance of committing no default in future but they did not pay the amount and lease stood terminated in July,2018. Ops became liable to make payment of 900000 and Rs.720000 total Rs.1620000. In month of July 2018 ops acknowledged the liability to make payment the amount Rs.1620000 and entered into agreement in presence of aforesaid witness for further lease at annual rent Rs.4500 per beegha total Rs.270000 with assurance of committing no default in future but they did not make payment and lease was terminated in July, 2020. Op became liable to make payment Rs.162000 and Rs.540000 total Rs.2160000. On termination of lease in July, 2020 complainants asked the op to handover the possession of the land to them but they did not pay any heed. Ops are intended to grab the land. Complainants approached the authorities to get the possession from them. Ops did not pay the money Rs.2160000 and are liable to make payment with interest. On termination of the lease in July,2020 op remained in unauthorized possession of the land and they are liable to pay damages for use and occupation of land during the year July, 2020-2021for the amount  Rs.300000 at the rate of  Rs.5000 per beegha. Thus the ops are liable to pay the amount Rs.2460000 with interest. OPs were given the facility of farming at the land for a consideration and it amounts to service under the Act. Complainant provided the facility to the ops for the purpose of livelihood and thus they attained the status of consumer who availed of the services in the form of facility of farming for a consideration and the op became the service provider. Service is defined U/s 2(42) of the Act as the service of any description and not limited only to the provisions of facilities under the provisions of section 2 (42) of the Act. In the context of contractual relationship between the parties the meaning of consideration is to be understood in the form of contract as the promise forms the consideration each other and it is not necessary that consideration should always be the money and it may be in other form also. Thus either party to a contract may be service provider or service recipient. In this way complainants are consumer and op is service provider. Complainants are entitled for payment of the amount Rs.2460000 with interest and compensation for harassment Rs.100000 with litigation expense Rs.25000.                  
3. Ops stated in WS that the complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint and they have not come to the court with clean hands  and ops                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               have further stated that Vipin Kumar S/o Devraj Bhardauj was Bhumidhar of 1/3 share in the land who was unmarried and issueless. OP no.2 Risal Singh used to live with him and he served him throughout life. He bequeathed  1/3 share of the entire agriculture land in favor of op no.2 through unregistered will dated 10.3.1995 in presence of witness. Vipin Kumar died on 1.1.2007 and after his death op no.2 became owner and occupant of 1/3 share in the land through will and he is in possession of the land and he has been farming on the land. OP is owner in possession of the land in question but Surendra Prakash and others started to quarrel in regard to possession and proceeding U/s 145 Cr.P.C was instituted. On 20.6.2021 at about 4 P.M. complainant with some criminal persons reached the disputed land where the op no.2 was looking after the paddy crop. They threatened the op to dispossess him from the land as Vipin Kumar has executed sale deed in their favor whereas Vipin Kumar had died several years ago. On 21.6.2021 op no.2 contracted his counsel at Tehsil Koil and came to know that the complainants have recorded their names in the revenue record. Then the op no.2 came to know about the forged sale deeds which were executed by fraud. Application U/s 156(3) CrPC was made filed in CJM Court, Aligarh and the police was directed to register the F.I.R. Op no.2 also filed Civil suit No.448/2021 Rishal Singh V/s Smt. Rajkumari in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Koil Aligarh that is pending. It is wrong to say that land was let out on lease to ops. Complainants were never remained in possession of the land and ops are owner in possession of the land.
4. Complainants have repelled the allegations made by the op in WS in their replication. They have stated that they are Bhumidhar of the land and mutation of their names in the revenue record was effected on 28.9.2013 and they are co-owners and co-shares. Complainants had given their shares on annual lease to ops. Ops committed default in payment of rent and entered into fresh agreement in the year 2012, 2015 and 2018. Ops are intended to grab the land. Complainants had further stated that it is wrong to say that any will dated 10.3.1995 was executed by Vipin Kumar in respect of 1/3 share of the land. The Will dated 10.3.1995 is forged and fabricated and does not confer any right tittle and interest on the ops. Complainants have terminated the lease and ops were ousted from possession of the land with the delivery of possession to the complainants on 3.7.2021 by revenue team with the police force. Since then complainants are in possession of the land and they are cultivating the crops. The proceedings U/s 145 CrPC between Surendra Kumar and op no.2 has no concern with the possession of complainants on their shares in the land. Appliction U/s 156 (3) CrPC was based on false allegations concealing the true facts and case was registered wherein no opportunity was available to the complainant to submit their version. F.I.R lodged on the basis false allegations and is liable to be ignored. The Civil Suit no.448/2021 filed in the Civil Court (Junior Division Koil, Aligarh ) for cancellation of the sale deed and injumction is based on false allegations. The present case is based on relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties and the question of validity of sale deed is not to be decided by the commission and  the relief of reimbursement has been sought by the complainants.                         
5. Complainants have filed his affidavits and papers in support of his pleadings. Ops have also filed affidavits and papers in support of his pleadings.

6. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.

7. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
8. Complainants have claimed the rental amount for reimbursement with the allegations that the land was purchased by the complainant through sale deed executed by Vipin Kumar and their names were mutated in the revenue record and they have become co-owner /co-shares of the land since 28.9.2013. Complainants have filed extracts of Khatauni 1425-1430 F wherein mutation was effected on 28.9.2013 in favour of complainants replacing the name of Vipin Kumar S/o Dev Raj Bhardwaj on the basis of registered sale deed dated 9.1.2009. Thus it is proved that the complainants are co-  shares/Co- owner of the land. OP no.2 has alleged that the land was bequeathed by Vipin Kumar through Will dated 10.3.1995 and on the death of Vipin Kumar ops claimed the ownership of the land. OPs has alleged that a Civil Suit is pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division, Koil, Aligarh and they have also alleged that FIR was also lodged against the complainants and proceeding U/s            145 Cr. P.C. is pending in the court of SDM Koil, Aligarh but no order of any court has been filed to show their ownership of the land on the basis of alleged Will. Complainants have vested with the right tittle, interest in the land on the basis of sale deed dated 9.1.2009 on the basis of that the complainants have been mutated their names in the revenue record on 28.9.2013 as per extract of Khatauni 1425-1430 F. So long as the sale deed dated 9.1.2009 is not cancelled by any competent court, entries in revenue record shall remain effective and the ownership of the land shall remain vested with the complainants. OPs have claimed possession on the land and the complainants also stated that the ops were handed over possession of the land on lease. In view of above circumstance of the case, the allegation made by the complainant to hand over possession of the land on lease to the ops cannot be ignored and it is found that the complainants handed over the possession of the land to the OPs on lease for cultivation and are entitled for reimbursement of the rental amount.

Ops have challenged jurisdiction of the commission on the ground of pendency of Civil Suit. The suit filed in the Civil Court relates to the cancellation of sale deed whereas the present case involves the relief of reimbursement based on agreement of the parties the complainants and ops had entered into contract whereby the complainants let out the land to the ops for cultivation on payment of money and both the parties made reciprocal promises to each other which forms consideration to each other and the consideration may be in cash or in kinds and thus the complainants are consumers and ops are service provider for consideration in view of section 2(7)(ii) of the Act defining the term consideration in terms of contract Act for rendering service of the kind that may be defined as service U/s 2(42) of the Act which defines service of any kind and not limited to the service mentioned in the Act. The District Commission is competent to decide the matter involved in the case for reimbursement as the District Commission is vested with jurisdiction U/s 100 of the Act in addition to the jurisdiction vested in other courts or tribunal.

9. Complainants have claimed reimbursement since the month July, 2009 and the compensation from the month July, 2009 to July,2020 is beyond the period of limitation and cannot be granted as being barred by time. Since the Month of July, 2020 complainants have claimed the amount Rs.300000 at the rate Rs.5000 per Beegha and thus complainant are entiteds to the Amount Rs. 300000 with interest @9% per annum.
10. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainant.
11. We hereby direct the ops to pay Rs.300000 with pendente lite and future interest @9% per annum and Rs 10000 as litigation expenses.
12. Op shall comply with the directions within 30 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.    
13. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
14. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.