SATYAPRAKASH JAIN Vs. IVR PRIME URBAN DEVELOPERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Advocate, for the complainant and Ms. Twinkle Rathi, Advocate, for the opposite party.

(2.) Satya Prakash Jain has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) deliver possession of built-up area of his share as per Development Agreement dtd. 20/4/2007; (ii) pay Rs.5000000.00 as compensation for deficiency in service; (iii) pay Rs.100000.00 as the costs of litigation; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case.

(3.) The complainant stated that IVR Prime Urban Developers Limited (the opposite party) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. The complainant purchased Plot No.72, Cyber Enclave, Madhapur Village, Srilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through sale deed dtd. 14/10/2005 and was owner of it. The opposite party approached the complainant and represented that it had varied experience in the field of development and construction of the building and had a good-will for raising high quality constructions and completing on time. Believing upon the representations of the opposite party, the complainant entered into a Development Agreement-Cum-General Power of Attorney dtd. 20/4/2007, for development of his above Plot No.72. Under the development agreement, the share of the complainant was 21 sq. ft. in every 1 sq. yard build-up area and remaining area would go to the opposite party. The opposite party paid Rs.1952000.00 through cheque dtd. 20/4/2007, as an advance, refundable on completion of the project and handing over possession of the share of the complainant. As per clause-3.1 of the agreement, the construction had to be completed within 30 months from 1/11/2006 with grace period of six months. Vacant possession of the land was handed over to the opposite party on the date of execution of development agreement. 30 months period expired in April, 2009. The complainant, through letter dtd. 12/5/2009, requested the opposite party to deliver possession within grace period i.e. up to 31/10/2009 and in case, possession is not delivered till then, to pay rent @Rs.30.00 per sq. ft. on the built-up area of share of the complainant. The opposite party did not respond, then the complainant gave a reminder dtd. 1/6/2009. The opposite party, vide letter dtd. 1/7/209, supplied a copy another letter dtd. 17/6/2009 addressed to Cyber Enclave Welfare Association, wherein he had attributed the cause of delay to the members of that association. The complainant gave a legal notice dtd. 27/7/2009, to the opposite party, calling upon it to pay rent from November, 2009. The opposite party sent reply notice dtd. 10/10/2009, stating that the complainant had negotiated through Cyber Enclave Welfare Association for common development of his plot amalgamating with the plot of the association; but some of the members of association had not executed/signed Joint Development Agreement, in spite signing MOU for development as such the project was delayed.