DUBRAJ PANDEY OF SAMBALPUR Vs. MUNICIPALITY OF JHARSUGUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in C. D. Case No.7 of 1992 of the District Forum, Sambalpur is the appellant in this appeal. He prayed in the aforesaid case for redressal against the Jharsuguda Municipality and Sub-Collector, Jharsuguda who was acting as the Chairman of the said Municipality alleging deficiency in service on their part. His case in short is that two shop plots were. allotted in his favour by the Municipal Order dated 14.5.90 and accordingly he deposited a sum of Rs.400/- towards the Salami and Rs.600/- towards the rent for three months. He also deposited a sum of Rs.20/- for the plan and Rs.100/- for supervision charges. He has further alleged that the said lease has been cancelled by the Municipality which according to the complainant was illegal. He approached the District Forum with a prayer to issue a direction to the Municipality to give delivery of possession of the said plots in favour of the complainant. The Municipality through its Executive Officer and Chairman filed a show cause denying their liability. It was stated in the show cause that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act and the prayer made by him is not available to be granted by a Consumer Forum. It was stated before the District Forum by the Municipality that the allotment of plots was made in violation of certain rules and the same was cancelled as per the directions of the Government. The District Forum on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case held that the complaint petition is not maintainable and dismissed the same. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The complainant in this appeal has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum and has urged in the memorandum of appeal that the District Forum should have concluded that there was a lease in favour of the complainant irrespective of the production of a lease deed as the documents referred to before the District Forum were sufficient for such an inference. It was further urged that the complainant is a bonafide lessee under the Municipality which could not be cancelled unilaterally without giving an opportunity to him and, therefore, the order of cancellation cannot be held to be legal and binding. He maintains that the prayer made by him follows from the transaction which he entered into with the Municipality and, therefore, the Consumer Forum should grant appropriate relief in this case.

(3.) The respondents enter appearance through Counsel who has strenuously argued that the proceeding itself was not maintainable before the District Forum and, therefore, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the matter. He wanted us to examine the maintainability of the case from various angles. It is needless to mention that a person to become a consumer in respect of services must have availed of or hired the services of another. The case of the complainant is that he applied for grant of lease of two shop plots which according to him was allotted in his favour and he deposited the premium and other necessary charges. Whether the allotment so made could be cancelled by the Municipality or if the order of cancellation is sustainable is a different matter with which the Consumer Forum has no concern. The legality or otherwise of the cancellation of the lease if any can be and should be taken up before the Forums and Courts created by law for the purpose. The complainant is otherwise not a consumer as he entered into a transaction of lease if at all his allegations are accepted. But assuming that a lease came into existence by the allotment order issued by the Municipality and by deposit of the premium by the complainant, the law defines the rights and duties of the lessor and the lessee and the terms of the lease can be enforced by either side in an appropriate Court of law. The complainant will not be a consumer inasmuch as he does not avail or hire the services of the Municipality for consideration by any stretch of imagination. The question of buying goods for consideration is out of question inasmuch as the subject matter of lease is not goods. Thus the complainant not being a consumer, his grievances cannot be entertained by a Consumer Forum. That apart, his only prayer in the application was for issue of direction to the Municipal Authorities to deliver possession of the lease-hold property to him. This prayer is also beyond the scope and purview of the Consumer Protection Act. We, therefore, hold that the proceeding was rightly not entertained by the District Forum and dismissed. The appeal is hereby dismissed.