GHANSI RAM LAL SHAH Vs. SUPRIYA SUHAS SARMALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 7.12.2010 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short as State Commission). Vide impugned order, appeal of the petitioner was summarily rejected by the State Commission at the admission stage itself.

(2.) Brief facts as emerge from record aire that complainant/respondent's No. 1 husband was in occupation of a room bearing No. 1, at Moreshwar Choudhary Chawl, Daftray Road, Malad (East), Mumbai. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are sons of respondent No. 1. Petitioner-builder entered into Development Agreement with the respondent No. 1 on 5.1.2002 to develop entire chawl and to allot Flat No. 102, admeasuring 275 sq. ft. in carpet area in newly constructed building in lieu of old tenanted premises. Pettioner also agreed to provide alternate accommodation to the respondents till new building was constructed. As per agreement, respondents vacated the tenanted premises and shifted over to alternate accommodation provided by the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner demolished the erstwhile tenanted room and constructed six storeyed building known as 'Siddha-Paras'. Respondents then insisted them to put in Flat No. 102 as per development agreement. Petitioner avoided to put them in possession. In May, 2007, petitioner sent message to the respondents to surrender their rights over Flat No. B/102. Respondents realized that petitioner was not willing to perform his part of contract and served notice dated 9.7.2007 to the petitioner which was replied by the petitioner and he suggested to sort out the matter amicably but no steps were taken. Thereafter, petitioner instituted a suit before Small Causes Court for eviction of the respondents from the temporary alternate accommodation. Respondents pleaded that statutory obligation under Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 was being violated by the petitioner. Thereafter, respondents filed consumer complaint against petitioner seeking vacant and peaceful possession of Flat No. B-102 in 'Siddha-Paras' Building and also claimed compensation of Rs.30,000 for breach of agreement.

(3.) In written statement petitioner took up the stand that present dispute cannot be decided by Consumer Forum since it was dispute between landlord and tenant. Petitioner also raised objection regarding limitation to file the complaint. Petitioner also pleaded that in terms of Clause 15 of Development Agreement, respondents were duty-bound to deposit with the petitioner, maintenance and other charges. Thus, respondents have committed breach of agreement and therefore, they were not entitled to get reliefs as sought by them.