NARAYAN VISHNU RIVONKAR Vs. SUNIL RAGHUNATH PEDNEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the Complainant in brief is that he had booked a shop bearing No. F -19 comprising 8.72 sq. mts. on the first floor of a building known as "Vinayaki". This was done through an agreement for sale entered into with the Opposite party on 16.6.2001 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,50,000 only. Opposite Parties are a firm known as "Pednekar Developers Pvt. Ltd.,", engaged in the business of construction and development. The Complainant had paid an advance of Rs. 1,00,000 towards the said booking of the shop and which amount has been duly admitted by Opposite Party vide a receipt dated 16th June, 2001. The balance amount of Rs. 50,000 was agreed to be paid on the Opposite Party handing over possession of the said shop No. F -19. In terms of the said agreement, possession of the said shop was to be delivered within a period of six months with a further extension of upto one year. Since the Opposite Party failed to deliver possession of the said shop by the agreed date i.e. 16.6.2002, the Complainant states that he could not start his real estate partnership business as he intended and this caused him heavy financial loss and mental torture.

(2.) THE Complainant had also booked another parallel shop No. F -3 on the same floor and had paid an amount of Rs. 50,000 at the time of booking the same and acknowledged by opposite party vide letter dated 7.1.2005. Since the Opposite Party had not completed the construction in the said building, the Complainant cancelled the booking of the second shop No. F -3 and the opposite party refunded the amount of Rs. 50,000 though in two instalments. The Complainant states that the Opposite Party failed to deliver possession of both the shops by agreed date and he had to continuously beg the Opposite Party to give possession of the shops to him. Complainant states that he served a first notice cum letter dated 18.3.2004 on the Opposite Party and in reply the Opposite Party promised to hand over possession latest by 30th May, 2004. The Complainant states that the Opposite Party, however, completed pending work on shop No. F -19 and delivered physical possession to him on 30.6.2004. He does states that he became a lawful occupant and owner of the said shop. He strengthened his claim of possession by stating that new electricity connection in his name was even obtained and annexed copies of bills paid by him. He states that he commenced to use the said shop by way of a godown but could not start his own business since he did not have lawful possession in writing from the Opposite Party.

(3.) THERE were a number of letters written to and fro between the Complainant and the Opposite Party and the Complainant vide letter dated 18.3.2004 informed the Opposite Party that in view of the same, without going in the historical facts under the transaction that is, hereby, requested to refund all the moneys paid to you immediately, within a period of 10 days alongwith compounded interest rate of 25% p.a. on the same, from the date of receipt of this notice." Also, the Complainant vide letter dated 17.1.2005, reiterated his demand to the Opposite Party to hand over possession of shop No. F -19 wilfully and peacefully along with letter of possession within a period of 7 days from receipt of the notice or else "to your alternative option, placed before you, you may post him a cheque (just as you have posted above said cheque of Rs. 25,000 for his amount) which is lying in your undue and coercive possession within same time limit of 7 days as above to the refund of all his moneys paid to you under said violated agreement dated 16.6.2001." Vide letter dated 31.5.2005, a final notice asking the Opposite Party to deliver the letter of possession in writing and to refund and restore to him all his amount of monies due to him was sent to the Opposite Party. The Complainant also through Adv. Suhas K. Kundaikar, sent a "Notice of Caution" dated 23.3.2005 wherein it was stated that his client had issued a final demand notice dated 31.1.2005 to the vendor M/s. Pednekar Developers Pvt. Ltd. calling upon it either to refund all his amount already paid with damages, and due penalty, or to deliver peaceful and lawful possession of Shop No. F -19 admeasuring 8.72 sq. mts. in the new building "Vinayaki" at Varcondem, Ponda, Goa, with minimum damages within 30 days from the receipt of the said notice. Copy of this notice was also published titled "Public Notice" in a local newspaper dated 25th March (Friday), 2005. The Complainant states that to his surprise on seeing the public notice the Opposite Party revengefully dispossessed the Complainant of the shop No. F -19. He stated that he was always ready and willing to pay the balance amount but the same was never demanded from him by Opposite Party. He further stated that the refund of the amount and the cancellation of the agreement by Opposite Party was arbitrary and he had received the amount of Rs. one lakh under protest. There were a series of letters to and fro from the Complainant to the Opposite Party since the issues could not be resolved amicably. Since there was no further response from the Opposite Party to various demands of the Complainant, the Complainant filed the present complaint, praying as under: