NEPAL CHANDRA CHATTERJEE Vs. JAYANTI BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (substituted now) (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Petitioners, who were the Opposite Parties No. 8 to 10 in the original Complaint (hereinafter be referred as "the owners"). Vide the present Revision Petition, the owners have challenged the order dated 12.07.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.320 of 2011 filed by them against the order dated 09.06.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly at Chinsurah (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.120 of 2007 of the Respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred as "the Complainant"). The State Commission has dismissed the Appeal. The District Forum had allowed the Complaint and issued the following directions:

(2.) In the Revision Petition, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the owners that they were the owner of a property and they had entered into an agreement dated 04.12.2001 with the Respondents no.2 to 8 herein, (hereinafter referred as "the Developers"). The Developers executed power of attorney subsequently on 05.12.2001. It is argued that the Owners had filed a Civil Suit for Injunction against the Developers in 2007 and an order dated 22.03.2007 was passed whereby the parties to the suit at that time were made to observe status-quo qua the subject property which was the subject matter of the agreement dated 04.12.2001. It is submitted that the said Suit for Injunction was subsequently amended and the Complainant was also made a party therein. The Suit was finally disposed of vide order dated 21.11.2013 whereby the Suit was decreed and all the Opposite Parties which also included the Complainant were restrained from alienating from the subject property. It is submitted that this Commission does not possess the jurisdiction to defy the said directions of the decree and/or interpret the said order. It is submitted that in view of this order of the Fora below whereby they were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the Complainant is an order without jurisdiction. It is further argued that the Owners had no privity of contract with the Complainant; they had neither sold the subject property to him nor had received any money from him and therefore, the Complaint qua them was not maintainable and the Fora below have acted without jurisdiction while allowing the said Complaint.

(3.) It is argued on behalf of the Complainant that the Petitioners were the owner of a property and he had entered into an agreement with the Developers. In the said agreement, the Developers were given absolute right on certain portion of the property. It is submitted that the Developers pursuant to the said agreement and having right to sell their portion had sold the subject property to them on 31.12.2002. It is submitted that the possession of the property was handed over to him on 04.02.2005 and that from the said date, the Complainant is in possession of the subject flat. It is further submitted that initially when the Suit for Injunction was filed by the owners, the Complainant was not a party to the said Suit. It is submitted that he was not a party to the Suit on the date when the status-quo order dated 22.03.2007 was passed. It is further argued that subsequently, the owners had amended the Suit for Injunction and included him as proforma parties and no relief had been sought against him. It is argued that the dispute between the owners and the Developers relates to certain payments and failure to hand over that portion of the developed property which stands allocated to the Owners as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 04.12.2001 between the Owners and the Developers and that the Complainant has no connection with the said portion of the property since what he had purchased was part of the property which was allocated to the Developers under the said agreement. It is argued that by the decree of injunction, the rights of the Complainant in the subject property are in no way affected. It is further argued that in terms of the agreement between the Owners and the Developers, the Owners had not handed over the exclusive right to execute the sale deed to the Developers, and being the owner of the property and by giving the right to the Developers to develop the property and sell the portion which falls in their portion, the duty to execute the sale deed under the law is that of the Owners and the role of the Developers is just to help in its execution. It is submitted that all these facts have been considered by the Fora below and accordingly, the impugned order has been passed. It is submitted that the Fora below have acted within its jurisdiction. It is submitted that there was an agreement between the Developers and the Complainant and the right to enter into this agreement by the Developers with the Complainant emanates from the agreement dated 04.12.2001 between the owners and the Developers and therefore, it cannot be said that the Owners had no liability and the Complaint was not maintainable.