Orissa

Rayagada

CC/375/2016

Sri Promod Kumar Samal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The M.D. Chife Buildr Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

09 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 375 / 2016.                                           Date.     9 .11 . 2017

 

Sri Pramod Kumar  Samal,  S/O: Sri Hala dhara Samal, At/Po: J.K.Pur, Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).  Cell No. 9437205172.  …. Complainant.

Versus.

The Managing Director, Chitra Builders Pvt. Ltd., No.119, Amaravati  Street, Bharathiar University, Guruswamy Nagar, Coimbatore- 641046 (India).                                                                                                                           … Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:-Self..

For the O.P :- Set exparte.

JUDGMENT

               

The  present dispute arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non payment of the   rent to  leased constructed house.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

The O.P.  had  approached the complainant to leased the newly constructed house for monthly rent basis.  As  the complainant   constructed the house for the same purpose agreed  to lease the same to the O.P. monthly  rent basis at the rate of Rs. 9,000/-. After final oral discussion there was executed   an unregistered lease agreement with  the complainant and the O.P. on first time on dt. 1.9.2008 and it was continued till 2013  on condition with 11 months interval renewal.  After  immediate expiry   of the lease period on 30.9.2013 the complainant had asked the O.P.  to vacate the lease hold  premises for personal use, but the O.Ps assured that as now they have no project here to continue  their business and they are trying  to  start  new business  and after  that completion of the agreement they will continue the same, but they have no problem to pay the rent if desired  any at any stage.   With all assurance the complainant  had not vacated the same and  given  all  opportunity to the O.Ps to continue to remain  in the same house.  The O.Ps paid house rent till  October, 2013. Since from November, 2013 the O.Ps neither paid the house rent nor renewed the lease deed.  From November, 2013 the O.P is residing  at Chennai   and  has  assured to pay the  house rent by  NEFT to the complainant  by  phone.  The  representative of the O.Ps visited the house of the complainant and asked not  to  vacate the same or not to proceed for any legal  litigation. Soon after new contract they will   clear all the dues.  But till date they have not paid the house rent  from November, 2013  to November,2016  and also not paid the Electrical dues.  Hence  this case.  The complainant prays the forum direct the O.P to pay house rent from November, 2013 to November, 2016  which cost @ Rs.9,000/- x 37 =3,33,000/-and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit  and proper for the best interest of justice.

                The  O.P  received  notice from the  forum as  revealed  from the  postal receipt, but neither prefer to appeared nor choose to file written version.  The statutory period for filing of written version  was over.  Hence the O.Ps  were set exparte U/S- 13(2)(b)(ii) of C.P. Act, 1986  So the case was posted for  hearing  to close the case within the time frame as per  the C.P. Act.

                We   heard  the  arguments from the   complainant  on  the  question  of maintainability of this  complaint  petition.  As per the pleading of the   complainant it revealed that his residential house /building was let out to the O.P.

                With regard to ascertain whether the complaint  comes  as a consumer under  C.P. Act  and we   proceeded to hold that the  complainant is not at all a consumer under the C.P. Act.   There is no hiring of any services rendered by the O.P. on payment of consideration.  It  is well settled   law  that where any transaction   deals with immovable  property it can not be the subject  matter of complaint under the C.P. Act.  It is held and reported in C.P.R-  1992  Volume-I page No. 109 where in the hon’ble  Commission observed  “on scrutiny of the records we find that the grievance put forward in the complaint filed before the   Dist. Forum  relates  to  dispute  between landlord and tenant which does  not   a tall  come  within the purview of the C.:P. Act and the complaint petition  is  dismissed”.  

                It is held and reported in C.P.R-  1992  Volume-I page No. 74  where in the hon’ble   National  Commission observed   “that the arrangement   between the  complainant   and  Respondent  is   only one of lease immovable property  and the default or omissions on the part of the O.P. which  is  complained   of  is  in relation to  his  obligations  under the said contract  relating to the lease   of immovable property.  Such a grievance  will not  be found with in the scope of C.P. Act since there is no hiring of service for consideration  by the   complainant. The rent  becames payable  because of right of occupation of a premises  in  question and not for the reason  that the owner of the house is  required to render    service in  lieu there  of. This being the position of law, the complainant can not be a consumer  as defined in the Act and consequently,  from above observations it is crystal clear that  the complaint brought the dispute   presented before  this forum is not a consumer dispute.  Forum  have  no jurisdiction to  entertain or decide   this dispute   laid before it  by the complainant. 

                We  are   not going to the merits of the matter and express   no opinion in respect  of the same for deciding the points raised by the complainant. It is  open to the complainant to take resort to proper court  of   law  for  relief claimed by him.   In the  result the complaint petition is dismissed but without cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.         Pronounced  on  this   9   th.    day  of  November,   2017.

 

 

Member                                               MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.