SUKHENDU BANIK Vs. SUJIT KUMAR SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by learned District Forum, Barasat, North 24 -Parganas in case No. CC 51 of 2012 dismissing thereby the complaint. The learned District Forum imposed cost of Rs. 10,000 under Section 26 of the C.P. Act on the Complainant with the direction that the said amount be deposited with the SCWF within 15 days from the date of order, in default penal action be taken against him. The case of the Complainant/Appellant, in short, is that he runs a manufacturing unit of card board box in the commercial space as described in the schedule of the complaint. It is run by him for earning livelihood by means of self -employment. OP Nos. 9 to 12 are the developers and OP Nos. 1 to 8 are the land owners. There was a development agreement between the land owners and the developers for the development of the premises as per sanctioned plan. The Complainant entered into an agreement on 7.1.2009 for the purchase of flat and paid Rs. 30,000 towards the consideration money. The possession was delivered to the Complainant, but the registration has not been done. For the said reason, the complaint was filed before the learned District Forum.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant has submitted that the Complainant was originally a tenant, but he wanted to pay Rs. 1,20,000 to be the owner for running a shop. It is submitted that the learned District Forum was not justified in holding that it was an agreement for creation of tenancy and not for purchase of flat. It is contended that Utpal was a partner of his tenancy and the tenancy was in the name of the Complainant. It is submitted that the Complainant surrendered the tenancy and instead he wanted to purchase the flat. It is submitted that the alternative accommodation which was given to him was unfit for running the shop. It is contended that the Appellant wants to adduce additional evidence before the learned District Forum and in case of other tenants of the premises the deeds of conveyance have been executed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10/Developers has submitted that the Complainant is a tenant under Respondent No. 1 and in the evidence -in -chief it has been admitted by the Complainant. It is contended that the learned District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint.