Order No.4                       Dt.:20/02/2023

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant by filing MA/24/2023 has already amended the petition of complaint.

Therefore, no further step is required to be taken by the complainant in the case.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

Perused. Considered. Heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

The complainant filed instant complaint application on the prayer  to direct the opposite party no.1 to pay accommodation / shifting charges of Rs.2,72,000/- only from the month of June,2021 to October,2022 @ Rs.16,000/- per month. Complainant further prayed for direction upon the opposite party to pay the electricity consumption charges of Rs.1,27,200/- only to the complainant inter alia on other prayers.

The complainant further submits that he has entered into an agreement dated 19/07/2019 with the land owners and developer /opposite parties and in compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement he is entitled to get temporary shifting rent from the opposite party no.1.

A photo copy of the agreement is enclosed with the complaint application.

From Clause no.4 of the agreement, it appears that the opposite party no.1/developer shall handover the portion mentioned in the schedule within 18 months from the date of handover of the possession by the complainant. Clause no.2 of the agreement reveals that the complainant shall not pay any construction cost to the opposite party no.1/developer. No document has been submitted showing complainant has delivered possession of the premises in question in favour of the opposite parties.

Neither any document has been submitted to prove prima facie that the complainant has taken any alternative accommodation in Ideal Height Apartment, Block-D, Flat No.13 F at Premises No.302, A.P.C. Road, Kolkata-700 009 on a monthly rent of Rs.16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand) only.

In our considered view, the complainant is not a consumer in terms of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as he has failed to prove prima facie that he delivered the possession of the demised premises in favour of the opposite parties.

Moreover, the name of opposite party no.1 does not tally with the name mentioned in the agreement dated 19/07/2019.

In view of the above, the case cannot be admitted and the same is liable to be rejected.

Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed without cost.