SUSHMA UMESH Vs. SYED MOHD QADIR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint has been filed by Smt. Sushma Umesh against the opposite parties, a private limited company known as Karamat Shoping Complex. The opposite parties are builders and are engaged in the building of chambers after taking rent for a period of 30 months from the allottees. The complainant applied for taking on rent a chamber in Karamat Market Complex on the second floor of 'a' Block. The area of the chamber was 382.43 sq. ft. The application for the purpose was submitted on 22.2.1989 -. The opposite party had fixed Rs.5/- per sq. ft. the rent of the chamber and promised the chamber to be built by 1.1.1991 by which date the final instalment was to be paid after measurement of the chamber was taken and verified by the parties concerned.

(2.) On 22.2.1989 the first instalment of Rs.11,472.90p. was paid to the opposite party No.2 through a cheque drawn on State Bank of India. The remaining three instalments of Rs.11,472.90 each were paid through cheques drawn on the same bank on 3.8.1989, 6.2.1990 and 6.7.1990. When the complainant went to pay her final instalment to the opposite party then only an amount of Rs.6,500/- was demanded which was also paid but the receipt of the amount was not acknowledged and the opposite party informed the complainant that the possession would be given on 1.1.1991. The possession of the chamber was to be given as per terms and conditions contained in Brochure as brought out by the opposite party. The opposite party had promised to the complainant that full construction alongwith arrangement for electricity will be done in respect of the chamber but neither the chamber was fully constructed by the due date nor the possession was handed over to her. The opposite party was approached through letter and personal attendance by the complainant but the chamber was not deliberately fully constructed nor the possession was handed over inspite of the fact that a amount of Rs.52,391.60 had been paid to the opposite party by 30.12.1990. The complainant, therefore, lodged the claim before this Commission praying for immediate possession of the chamber in question and 2% p. m. interest on the amount deposited i. e. Rs.52,391.60 The complainant has also claimed Rs.4,000/- per month towards financial loss occurred to her because of non-delivery of the possession of chamber which till the date of filing of the claim comes to Rs.76,000/- and further amount of Rs.400/- per month till the date of delivery of possession. Compensation for physical and mental harassment amounting to Rs.10,000/- was also demanded alongwith the interest. ,

(3.) In the written statement the opposite party, Syed Mohd. Qadir Ali, Managing Director of M/s. M. I. Builders admitted that the company had agreed upon the let out the construction raised on realising 30 months advance rent. The complainant applied for the allotment of chamber on 22.2.1989 having an area of 382.43 sq. ft. on the second floor of Karamat Shoping Complex. It was also admitted that the rent of the allotted premises was agreed upon @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month. Last instalment of 6 months advance rent was to be deposited by the complainant on completion of the chamber proposed to be allotted. It was admitted that the complainant having agreed to have the chamber in the existing area on the agreed rent of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. paid a sum of Rs.6,500/- through cheque No.348157 and she had assured that she would come back to take possession on 9.2.1991. The complainant did not turn up despite intimation sent to her on the address given in the application form. The complaint has been filed in order to absolve the complainant from the payment of rent that has accrued w. e. f. February, 1991. The construction of the complex including the area of the chamber allotted to the complainant had already been completed by December 30,1990. The chamber was white washed and the electric wiring was also made. Despite various efforts made in this regard by the opposite parties to contact the complainant it was only in September, 1991 that they sent a detailed reply clarifying their position to the complainant and prior to that no effort was made by the complainant to have the possession of the chamber allotted to her. The adjacent shops/chambers were also let out by December, 1990 and the allottees are paying the rent of the respective premises. The opposite party is ready to give the possession of the allotted premises to the complainant although she has failed to occupy the premises despite repeated reminders and notices. As per terms contained in the application form the complainant is liable to pay 10% of the total amount paid in case she makes an application for cancellation. The complainant could not contacted. The complainant has not turned up to take possession of the allotted chamber inspite of the fact that the opposite party is still keen to deliver the possession to her and it is the complainant who is delaying the matter for which opposite party cannot be penalised. The complaint is, therefore, misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.