DATE OF FILING : 25-10-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 16-01-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 25-06-2014,
Gurudas Goswami,
son of late Kripasindhu Goswami,
residing at 84, Panchanantala Road, Block - A,
Flat No. 101, P.O. & P.S . Liluah,
District – Howrah.--------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
Susanta Roy,
son of late Sunil Roy,
residing at 58 ‘B’ Road, Bamungachi, Salkia, P.S. Liluah,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711106.-----------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.
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 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.p. to act upon the agreement dated 12-12-2008 and to pay the carrying cost to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- for shifting household articles to the new tenanted place and a compensation for Rs. 10 lakhs for mental agony and family displacement and Rs. 2 lakhs for intentional harassment and litigation costs as the o.p. in violation of the agreement did not provide the flat measuring 355 sq. ft. identical to his tenanted portion in the same building after reconstruction.
2. The o.p. in the written version contended interalia that he is not the land owner / landlord and has no authority to repatriate the complainant in the newly constructed building where he was a tenant; that the agreement did not carry any monetary stipulation; that the complainant vacated the premises out of his own; that the agreement as alleged cannot be acted upon.
3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. On scrutiny of the materials on record and after hearing the ld. Lawyers of both sides, we are of the view that this is purely a case under tenancy law that means under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and that the complainant is not a consumer. If the o.p. violated the terms of agreement the complainant ought to have preferred appropriate forum under appropriate section where the tenants are required to be displaced for addition and alteration or for total reconstruction. On the contrary, he preferred this Forum claiming himself a consumer which he is not. The o.p. is the promoter / developer. He was engaged by the land owner for development of the property and for construction of the building. Naturally, the o.p. cannot be regarded as a service provider, nor the agreement dated 12-12-2008 can be acted upon if it was between the parties of the present complaint. The only stipulation in the deed of agreement that bids a total good bye of the instant complaint is that the developer was to reinstate the tenant ( complainant ) to the newly constructed building in the ground floor. We have already opined that the instant building is purely within the ambit of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and as such the instant complaint cannot be entertained by this Forum. Complainant not being the consumer and the land owner not being impleaded and no consideration money having been paid we are of the view that the instant complaint must fail and requires to be dismissed. Both the points are accordingly dismissed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 339 of 2013 ( HDF 339 of 2013) be and the same is dismissed on contest as against the o.p. but in view of the circumstances without costs.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( T.K. Bhattacharya )
President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
