1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that she is the owner of the building covered by khata no. 994/250, plot no. 2045/7074 under mouza Malkangiri and as per approach of O.Ps, she let out the said building on monthly rent of Rs. 21,000/- and made a lease agreement to that effect on 27.06.2016 with a condition to enhance the house rent by 10% of the monthly rent on every 3 years and delivered the said building to the O.Ps.  The allegation of complainant is that though the O.Ps have occupied the said building as on 27.06.2016 but paid the monthly rent since October, 2017 in her account and did not pay the rent from 27.06.2016 to October, 2017. Thus showing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, she filed this case claiming the monthly house rent of Rs.3,36,000/- with interest alongwith Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation from the O.Ps.

2. O.Ps appeared through their Ld. Counsel, who filed their counter versions admitting the agreement for leasing out of the alleged building as on 27.06.2016 whereas they have taken the possession of the same on October, 2017 with a monthly rent of Rs. 21,000/-, but denied the other allegations contending that since the disputed subject matter is civil in nature and trialable by Civil Court and also challenges the maintainability of the present dispute and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case.

3. Parties have filed certain documents and citations in support of their submissions.  Heard from the parties at length.  Perused the record and material documents available therein.

4. From the record, it is ascertained that there was a contract made between the parties for leasing out of the alleged building on dated 27.06.2016 with certain terms and conditions, which was signed by the complainant and the O.P. No.1.  The allegations of complainant is that as per said agreement, the O.Ps are supposed to pay rent allowance of Rs. 21,000/- per month since the agreement was made but till October, 2017 the O.Ps have not paid the rent violating the provisions of the said agreement and she is entitled for such amount.  Whereas the contentions of the O.Ps is that they have taken over the possession of the alleged building on lease as on 31.08.2017 and till that date the alleged building was under possession of the complainant.  Further contended that since the alleged disputes relate to civil in nature, as such the Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and accordingly prayed for dismiss the case.
    
5. From the hearing of the parties, it is ascertained that there only two issues which are to be settled herewith,

1. whether the Fora has jurisdiction to entertain the case,
2. whether the complainant is entitled for the rent from the O.Ps.

6. Now coming to the first point, we have gone through the documents filed by the parties and heard their submissions.  In this context, we would like to make it clear that the agreement which was made between the parties are binding on each other.  The A/r for O.Ps argued that the agreement was signed by the O.P. No.1 but not by the O.P. No.2 and the O.P. No.2 has signed the said agreement on 31.08.2017, as such the contract made between the parties is void and will be effective from 31.08.2017.  But the O.Ps has have miserably forgotten that both the O.Ps are belongs to same and one organization and the O.P. No.1 is the representative of the O.P. No.2 and the O.P. No.1 has signed the agreement on his official capacity, as such the agreement signed by the O.P. No.1 and the complainant on dated 27.06.2016 is valid and purely binding on both the parties as obligation and neither party can be exonerated from their own liability, if violate the conditions of such agreement. Further it is seen from the records that had the complainant not delivered the possession of the alleged building to the O.Ps, than it was the duty of O.Ps to make correspondences to that effect, and since the O.Ps had not made any type of correspondence with the complainant regarding non delivery of the alleged building from 27.06.2016 to October, 2017, as such the agreement continued from 27.06.2016 and the O.Ps are in possession of the alleged building since that date.  Further A/r for O.Ps argued that since the subject matter is civil nature and this Fora lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case.  In this context, we would like to make it clear that though the remedy is also available in other Forum, Section 3 of the C.P.Act, 1986 give an additional remedy besides those that may be available under other existing laws.Complainant draws our attentions towards the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission, in the case between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vrs Pradeep Kumar and Ors has held that “The provision of Consumer Protection Act are to be interpreted broadly and when jurisdiction is also available to other forum, the choice will be with the consumer whether to approach the Consumer Forum or the Other Forum”.  Considering the above verdicts, we think this Forum has ample jurisdiction to entertain the present case.Accordingly, the answer goes in favour of the complainant.

7. Now coming to the second point, since the present dispute arose out of an agreement / contract made between the parties and the O.Ps have violated their obligation out of such contracts.  Since there is no evidence brought out by the O.Ps to show that that they have not utilized the alleged building for their own financial business since 27.06.2016, the oral submission in this regard cannot be believable.  In this context, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Shri Harwinder Singh Randhawa and Ors Versus Avalon Resorts (P) Ltd, wherein it is held that “One is supposed to pay the allowance when thing is utilized by him”.   In view of the above verdicts, we feel, the complainant is entitled her amount from the O.Ps, as the O.Ps have utilized the alleged building for their own profits.  Accordingly answer goes in favour of the complainant.

8. Considering the above discussions, complainant is entitled her legitimate dues from the O.Ps, which they are bound to pay.  Further non release of the payment by the O.Ps definitely cause mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, which compelled her to file this case incurring some expenses to seek redress   Hence this order.  

                                                                                                      ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.Ps are herewith directed to release the amount of Rs. 3,36,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from 27.06.2016 till October, 2017 and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs. 3,36,000/- shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from 27.06.2016 to till payment.   Since the award is on higher side, we are not inclined to grant any reliefs towards compensation.

        Pronounced in the open Court on this the 26^th day of April, 2021.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.