TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. Vs. SANJIV MAHENDRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sanjiv Mahendru, the applicant/respondent-1 (in-person) and Ms. Shreya Sircar, Advocate, for the appellants.

(2.) The complainant-respondent has filed MA/380/2024 for setting aside final judgment dtd. 18/11/2021, passed in the appeal and subsequent orders passed in review application/miscellaneous application filed in it.

(3.) Sanjiv Mahendru filed CC/875/2015 for directing opposite parties-1 and 2 (the developer) to (i) handover possession of Unit No.B-II-5-004 i.e. east facing door, corner flat at ground floor of the building 'New Haven"; (ii) pay Rs.20.00 lacs, as the compensation for delay in delivery of possession, mental agony and harassment; (iii) pay Rs.2.00 lacs, as litigation costs; and (iv) Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The complainant stated that Tata Housing Development Company Limited (the developer) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of the development and construction of the group housing projects. The developer launched a group housing project in the name of 'New Haven' at Village Betegaon, Taluka Palghar, District Thane, in the year 2009. The complainant applied for 3BHK small + car parking and gave preference for east facing door, ground floor and fencing park and deposited application money on 10/8/2009. The developer issued Allotment Letter dtd. 26/9/2009, allotting Apartment No.004, on the Ground Floor, Block No. B-II-5, in complex 'New Haven". Along with Allotment Letter, the developer attached a copy of building plan containing an endorsement as '3BHK Small. As per your preference, East facing door, correct flat, Ground floor, fencing park' and the flat allotted to the complainant was encircled in it. The parties entered into an agreement for sale dtd. 18/6/2010 of Flat No.004, Block No. B-II-5, in complex 'New Haven' + car parking for total consideration of Rs.2225000.00. Along with the agreement a Photostat copies of the part sanctioned building plan and sketch map of Ground Floor Plan have been attached. In the sketch map four flats were shown and its number have also noted. Payment plan was time linked. The complainant took home loan from opposite party-3 and paid the consideration. Clause-13 of the agreement provides due date of possession as 30/12/2011. However, the construction was delayed and the developer handed over possession of the flat and parking on 19/8/2013 along with key of main door the flat. The complainant demanded for delay compensation, then the officers of the developer stated that the matter would be taken up with the senior officers. After taking possession, the complainant shifted his belonging including wall clock also held small function in Flat No.004. Thereafter, the flat was locked by the complainant. In early, 2014, one Ms. Chris Dmello, claiming herself as the representative of the developer, called the complainant and stated to return the key of the flat stating that possession over wrong flat was given to him. The complainant then contacted on toll free number of the developer and asked to give in writing in this respect. Then Ms. Chris Dmello gave an email dtd. 31/3/2014, attaching a copy of another email dtd. 30/12/2013, mentioning that relevant changes have been done on the site and the complainant was required to visit there. The complainant then visited number of times to Mumbai. On 15/7/2014, the complainant met with Mr. R. Poddar and Mr. Rajeev Ambekar, who stated that possession over wrong flat had been given to him. They asked to return the key or the lock would be broken or door panel itself would be changed. The complainant made complaint to higher officers of the developer through email dtd. 28/9/2014. The developer vide email dtd. 11/11/2014, informed that his grievances were not genuine. Ultimately the developer changed the lock of the flat of the complainant and locked it and thereby deprived the complainant from its possession.