JASPAL SINGH PURAN SINGH NAGI Vs. VINAMRA DEVELOPER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mohan Babu Agarwal, Advocate, for the complainant, Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ms. Stuti Sharma, Advocate, for the opposite parties.

(2.) Jaspal Singh Puran Singh Nagi has filed above complaint, for restraining the opposite parties from creating third party interest over new shop admeasuring carpet area as 56.53 sq.mtrs., on the ground floor, in proposed "Shanti Gold" building to be constructed on Plot No.6, TPS III, Santacruz, CTS No.228, 228/1, Santacruz (East), 7th Nehru Road, Mumbai-400055 and directing them to:-

(3.) The complainant stated that M/s. Vinamra Developer (opposite party-1) was a partnership firm, initially formed through registered deed dtd. 29/6/2010, under Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and continue to exist with change of one partner and Ambrish Hasmukh Soni, Harshad Ratilal Soni and Chetan Narendra Dhakan (opposite parties-2 to 4) were its partners. The opposite parties were engaged in the business of development, construction and repairs of the buildings, investments in the property and such other business as mutually agreed between the partners. The complainant was searching a shop for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. Through common acquaintance, the complainant came in touch of the partners of the firm, in January, 2011, who informed that they were intending to acquire the building "Rabab Manzil" situated at Plot No.6, TPS III, Santacruz, CTS No.228, 228/1, Santacruz (East), 7th Nehru Road, Mumbai-400055, which was in occupation of the tenants. The opposite parties created a rosy picture and advised the complainant that one of the tenant at ground floor had agreed to surrender its tenancy. Instead of taking tenancy straightway, the complainant should join as a partner in the firm by parting Rs.1.21 crores. On surrender of tenancy by the tenant of ground floor, they would handover that shop to the complainant. Believing upon the assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant paid Rs.1.21 crores to the opposite party and they inducted the complainant as a partner in the firm and thereafter handed over possession of the shop at ground floor of "Rabab Manzil" admeasuring carpet area of 414.15 sq.ft., on quarterly rent of Rs.2000.00 to him. The complainant was intending to start his business in the said shop but the opposite parties advised for not doing any renovation work as they were intending for demolish the old building and reconstruct new building. The opposite parties submitted their building plan for redevelopment before Development Authority on 13/9/2013. The opposite parties executed Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement on 11/4/2014, which was registered as per Badar-I/Sr. No.3267 dtd. 11/4/2014, in favour of the complainant, in lieu of his shop in old building. The complainant handed over possession of the old shop to the opposite parties for its demolition and reconstruction. Clause-3 of Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement provides that in place of existing build-up area of 36.55 sq.mtrs., the opposite party shall provide 56.53 sq.mtrs. build-up area. Clause-4 provides 18 months period + 6 months grace period from the date of grant of "commencement certificate" for handing over possession of new shop. "Commencement certificate" was issued on 3/5/2014 and the period of 24 months expired on 2/5/2016. But the opposite parties did not handover possession of new shop. The opposite parties also promised to provide monthly rental during the construction period for temporary accommodation but they did not give any money in this head. The opposite parties committed deceptive trade practice and amended Layout Plan without consent and knowledge of the complainant, thereby reduced the built-up area of the shops at ground floor from 56.53 sq.mtrs. The complainant filed CC/2019/2016, on 21/12/2016 against the opposite parties before this Commission. Later on, the opposite parties promised to handover possession of shop with all accrued benefits. On their assurance, the complainant withdrew CC/2019/2016, vide order dtd. 26/10/2018, with liberty to file fresh complaint. The opposite parties, however, did not talk for settlement, after withdrawal of the complaint. The complainant gave a legal notice dtd. 27/5/2019 to the opposite party to handover possession of the shop or to give compensation. In spite of service of notice, the opposite parties did not respond, then this complaint was filed in June, 2019.