In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.460/2012
1) Smt. Sumitra Das,
1/2/1D, Dharmatala Road,
Kasba, Kolkata-42. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The Proprietor / Manager representing
M/s Bengal Construction Co.
22/23A, Monohar Pukur Road,
P.S. Lake, Kolkata-29.
2) Arabinda Kumar Moitra,
22/23A, Monohar Pukur Road,
P.S. Lake, Kolkata-29. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 8 Dated 12-06-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that o.p. no.1 is a sole proprietorship firm, represented by its sole proprietor Sri Arabinda Kumar Maitra, i.e. o.p. no.2 the lessor and the developer. Complainants were in the need of residential accommodation in Calcutta and hence hired the service of o.p. no.1 for flat. O.p. no.1 the developer offered the complainants flats on lease agreement.
Complainant reached respective lease agreement for respective flats for specific considerations for 99 years on terms and conditions stated therein. The lessor as thika tenant being the absolute owner of the huts, structures and shades erected on or over the land measuring 6 cottas 3 chittaks 31 sq.ft. at premises no.T-55A/2/1, Deshpran Sasmal Road, P.S. Charu Market, Dist.24 Pgs(S), Calcutta-33, Ward no.89 under CMC decided to erect flats.
Lessor has already mutated his name and it thus seized and possessed in khas the said entire premises as a thika tenant on due payment if taxes and other charges. Lessor, as the sole proprietor of the developer firm, to wit, o.p. no.1 intended to erect a pucca building with modern amenities after the demolition of the existing old structures according to plan sanctioned as per Calcutta Municipal Corporation.
As per the lease agreement and in consideration a sum of Rs.4,32,,000/- was paid by the lessee to the developer by way of advance rent. A sum of Rs.68,000/- was to be paid during the progress of construction of the prepared building.
Complainant found with grief and pain, no advancement of the construction work and persuaded the o.p. to complete the flat early but to no result.
Complainant was compelled to register an advocates letter dt.30.1.08 demanding the immediate completion of the flat and registration and delivery thereof or pay compensation to the tune of Rs.6.5 lakhs.
O.p. to tide over his crises and in competency, invited and involved one S. Halder as new promoter to take over the entire project after full filling the demand of the o.p. land lord by way of paying Rs.37,000/- and sought complainant’s consent and persuaded the complainant to concede to the scheme. Complainant the would be – flat owners signed this proposal dt.22.6.08.
O.p. issued the complainant advocates letter dt.25.3.09 stating that the said Mr. S. Halder to be unworthy and useless and expressed unwillingness to continue with him any more.
Complainant issued advocates letter again under regd. post requesting the registration of the flat and delivery of the possession at the earliest but to no result as yet. Hence the case was filed by the complainants with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
Both the o.ps. did not contest this by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against the o.ps.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant, evidence and documents in particular and we find that o.p. no.2 entered into a lease agreement with o.p. no.1 herein called as lessor and lessee in respect of a property standing in the name of lessor namely Arabinda Kumar Moitra who is a ‘thika tenant’ being the absolute owner of huts, structures and shades irected over the land measuring 6 cottas 3 chittaks 31 sq.ft. at premises no.T-55A/2/1, Deshpran Sashmal Road, P.S. Charumarket, Kolkata-33, ward no.89 and lessor was processing the said thika tenanted premises on due payment of taxes and other charges. The complainant entered into an agreement to purchase a flat therein and paid some amount of consideration amount and the o.ps. did not complete the flats nor handed over the incomplete flats even and o.ps. also did not execute the deed of conveyance. Complainant has avered that the property in question is a thika tenancy property as we find from the petition of complaint itself. Complainant ought to have been much negligent prior to entering into agreement as lawyer.
In view of the findings above and on perusal of entire materials on record we find that the property in question is a thika tenanted property and o.ps. have got no authority to demolish the structure which was standing thereon and to construct flats and to sell to complainant since thika tenanted property cannot be sold not its character be changed in terms of the provisions of Thika Tenancy Act. That apart, there is nothing on record showing change of character by completion authority as per statute.
In the content of the above position instant complaint cannot be entertained by this Forum in the light of the observations made above and the complainant is not entitled to get relief since complainant cannot b e considered as a consumer as defined in the C.P. Act, 1986.
Ordered,
That the instant case stands rejected ex parte since barred by law.
Complainant is at liberty to agitate the issue before the appropriate Forum on the self same cause of action.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
