DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.102/2016
Sh. Laxmi Kant Agarwal,
S/o Sh. Prem Chand Agrawal,
R/o 59/1, Kalkaji Extension,
New Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
1. Super Bazar, the Cooperative Store Ltd.
Connaught Circus, New Delhi
2. Directorate of Estates (Market Section)
Govt. of India,
C Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi ……Opposite Parties
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
07.10.2016
O R D E R
Complaint was received on transfer by this Forum on 01.04.16.
We have heard the arguments on the application filed on behalf of the OPs for vacation of exparte interim stay and have also carefully gone through the record.
The Complainant filed the present complaint before the CDRF, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi. The averments made in the complaint, in precise, are that the Complainant is in occupation and possession of shops bearing No.169, 170, 171, Mohan Singh Market, INA (Super Bazar), New Delhi (in short, the property in dispute) since 18.01.1978 which infact were allotted to one Sh. Devender Sharma by the OPs in the year 1977 who due to his poor financial condition and other disabilities could not run the shops nor was in a position to discharge his obligations under the allotment letter dated 27.04.1977 and accordingly handed over the possession thereof to the Complainant.
According to the Complainant, his occupation and possession over the property in dispute is since 18.01.1978 which is absolute and well known to everyone including OP No.1 & 2
According to the Complainant, his application for conferring ownership right over the property in dispute was not accepted by the office of OP No.2 and, on the other hand, they threatened him that they will get him evicted from the property in dispute and, hence, claiming himself to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Complainant filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OPs to confer ownership right to him in respect of the property in dispute, not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the Complainant in respect of the property in dispute, to direct the OPs jointly and severally to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to him for causing mental pain, torture and harassment and Rs.22,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Alongwith the complaint the Complainant also filed an application for issuing interim directions.
While admitting the complaint and issuing notice of the complaint to the OPs on 03.08.10 CDRF, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi issued directions to the OPs thereby restraining them from interfering in the possession of the property in dispute till the disposal of the case.
In replies, OPs inter-alia took a plea that the Complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined U/s 2 (d) of the C.P. Act; that the Complainant has filed the complaint for restraining the OPs from taking possession of the property in dispute even though he has no document to prove his title or possession on the same. It is submitted that even if the Complainant is considered a licensee simpliciter, this Forum has no jurisdiction over the matter and no relief can be granted to him. It is pleaded that the Complainant is an unauthorized occupant and trespasser of the property in dispute. It is further stated that Sh. Devender Sharma was never allotted the property in dispute.
Thereafter, vide order dated 13.08.10, CDRF, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi restrained the OPs from interfering in carrying out the repair and renovation in the property in dispute till the disposal of the application.
The present application for vacating the stay has been filed inter-alia on the grounds taken in the written statement.
The counsel for Complainant has relied upon two judgments reported as Civil Appeal No.7223/2016 titled as Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel & Anr. Vs. M/s H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. & Ors., decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.08.16 and Civil Appeal No.944/2016 titled as Bunga Daniel Babu Vs. M/s Sri Vasudeva Constructions & Ors., decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.07.2016 and has contended that the Complainant is a consumer and this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and grant the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. On the other hand, the submissions made on behalf of the OPs are the same as made in the written statement and the application on behalf of the OPs and on behalf of the official liquidator.
Suffice it to say that the judgments relied on by the Ld. Counsel for Complainant are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
The complaint infact is for seeking mandatory injunction and declaration to the effect that the Complainant has become the owner of the property in dispute by adverse possession and he has the right to carry out unfettered legal rights to carry out repairs and renovation without any interference from any side including the OPs.
In our prima-facie considered opinion, the Complainant is not a “Consumer” and this Forum has no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. The appropriate remedy to the Complainant lies somewhere else.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we allow the application and vacate the interim stay orders dated 03.08.2010 and 13.08.2010.
Nothing stated herein above shall tantamount to any expression of opinion on the merits of the complaint.
Let a copy of this order be dasti to the counsel for parties. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member President
Announced on 07.10.16.
