MEGA CITY BUILDERS Vs. S L SAWHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in Consumer Dispute No. 1520/1998 before the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the order dt. 17-1-2008 in R.P. No. 153/2007 on the file of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission"). The case has a chequered history which we would like to refer to before we delve on to the real controversy.

(2.) The writ petitioner who was a builder, undertook to develop and construct residential flats in the premises bearing Municipal Door No. 1-2-412/5, Valmiki Nagar, Domalguda. The respondent herein was a tenant in the said building. On 29-9-1995, the writ petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU) with the owners to develop the same into flats. It is stated that on 21-8-1996, the writ petitioner entered into another MOU with the respondent herein requesting him to vacate the premises on condition of providing a three bed room flat on the south east corner of the first floor of the building admeasuring 1294 sq. feet at Rs. 2 lakhs. Agreeing to the terms of the agreement, the respondent claims to have vacated the said premises.

(3.) In the year 1998 the respondent filed CD No. 1520/1998 in the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad (for short, 'District Forum') seeking registration and delivery of possession of flat and compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony which he has undergone due to non-compliance of the agreement by the writ petitioner. By order dt. 17-8-2000, the District Forum allowed CD holding that there was deficiency in service by the opposite party i.e., the writ petitioner herein. The District Forum also directed the writ petitioner to execute and register conveyance deed and deliver possession of South East corner flat of the first floor of the building in Valmiki Nagar, Domalguda, Hyderabad, within three months of payment/deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs with necessary registration expenses by the complainant. The District Forum also directed the writ petitioner to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,500/- per month from 5-5-1999 towards rent till the date of delivery of possession of the flat apart from costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner filed FA No. 58/2001 before the State Commission which was dismissed on 21-3-2001 confirming the findings of the District Forum. Questioning the judgment of the State Commission, the writ petitioner preferred RP No. 920/2001 before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short "the National Commission") and the said revision petition was also dismissed on 23-5-2001.