RATNAPRABHA S DANDEKAR Vs. NITIN WALIMBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 12th November, 2009 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short, "State Commission") vide which appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 27th November, 2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai District (for short, "District Forum") was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts are that petitioner/complainant filed a complaint against Mr. Nitin Walimbe, Constituted Attorney of M/s. Sheela Shilpakar, the Builder/Developer-opposite party. According to petitioner, she occupied a tenement in Madhukala Bhuvan, R.K. Vidya Road, Dadar. It was a common office premises in Room No. 12A on he Ground Floor. Landlord of the building came to meet Ms. Sheela Shilpakar for developing tenement. Petitioner agreed with the opposite party to surrender her present commercial tenement so that she would get new premises in the newly constructed building. Opposite party agreed to give her office premises as well as.commercial residential premises on her paying Rs. 1,90,000 by cheque for 100 sq. ft. carpet area. It is the case of petitioner that Flat No. 203 admeasuring 225 sq. ft. was given to her in lieu of old office premises, but opposite party had not given her 100 sq. ft. carpet area for office premises for which she had paid to the developer Rs. 1,90,000 extra. Hence, she filed complaint before District Forum

(3.) Opposite party contested the complaint by filing written statement. According to opposite party, complainant had occupied office premises bearing Shop No. 12A, admeasuring 7.6 sq. mtrs. (81.80 sq. ft.) carpet area situated on the ground floor. Developer executed agreement dated 13.3.2002 between Landlords and Ms.Sheela Shilpakar. Landlord agreed to give development right of the said premises to Ms.Sheela Shilpakar during the course of redevelopment of the said property. There was further agreement between the petitioner and developers whereby developer agreed to provide to the petitioner residential premises admeasuring 7.6 sq. ft. built-up area, free of cost in lieu of her old premises and further agreed to give additional residential area of 100 sq. ft. built-up at the rate of Rs. 1,900 per sq. ft. It was mutually agreed between the parties to provide a single/composite residential flat of 270 sq. ft. built-up area, inclusive of 170 sq. ft. built-up area in lieu of petitioner's tenanted premises and 100 sq. ft. built-up area, as purchased by petitioner and agreement to that effect was executed on 19.4.2003. Accordingly, flat No.202 on the second floor in newly constructed building renamed as Madhukala Bhuvan was provided to the petitioner. This agreement dated 19.4.2003 was confirmed by the deed of confirmation dated 6.10.2005. After taking possession of the said premises petitioner, however, started making further claim and insisted that opposite party should give her commercial office premises of 100 sq. ft. for which she had given extra amount of Rs.1,90,000. Opposite party pleaded that the said property was being redeveloped by opposite party under Development Control Regulation No. 33 (7) of the Development Control Rules for Greater Mumbai, 1991. As per said regulation every tenant will have to release property for his existing tenement in following proportion: