PALLAB BANERJEE Vs. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant builder was the Opposite Party No. 1 before the State Commission. Respondent No. 1/Complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as "Respondent") was the tenant of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (Opposite Parties No. 2 to 5 before the State Commission) and used to deposit the rent with the office of the Rent Controller. Respondents No. 2 to 5 entered into an agreement with the Opposite Party No. 1, i.e., the appellant builder for construction of a building including several shop rooms. Appellant builder requested the Respondent to vacate the space occupied by him to facilitate the development and construction of the new building. Respondent agreed to the appellant's request and accordingly appellant entered into an agreement with the Respondent on 10.06.05 to sell a commercial space having covered area of 250 sq. ft. @ Rs. 325/- per sq. ft. on the ground floor of the building bearing No. 47/52, Ram Krishna Ghosh Road, Kolkata. Respondent paid Rs. 20,000/- as earnest money out of the total consideration of Rs. 81,250/- and the balance amount was to be paid in installments.

(2.) As per Clause 4 of the agreement entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent, the construction was to be completed and the possession thereof was to be delivered to the Respondent in useable and finished condition within four months from the date of starting of new construction subject to the full payment of consideration by the Respondent to the appellant. According to the Respondent, he sent a demand draft dated 09.05.07 for Rs. 61,255/- to the appellant towards balance payment which was not accepted by him as the building was not complete. Thereafter, Respondent requested the appellant to give possession in the godown and execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the shop room in his favour but the appellant did not pay any heed. On 28.12.08, Appellant sent a demand draft for Rs. 20,000/- to the Respondent returning the earnest money, Complainant, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission.

(3.) Appellant contested the complaint on the grounds; that the Respondent was not the tenant and the space was occupied by him illegally; that the Respondent never paid the balance consideration to the appellant which was in departure and violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement; that as there was breach of contract on the part of the Respondent, matter ought to be referred to the Civil Court for adjudication; that at no point of time, Respondent requested the appellant to give him the possession of the godown space and the appellant never agreed with such request due to non-payment of the balance consideration by the Respondent.