STAR ESTATE MANAGEMENT LTD Vs. S M KRISHNATRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -RESPONDENT was the complainant before District Forum. The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties alleging that opposite parties had sent a bill on 15. 7. 1999 for Rs. 1,75,851 on account of arrears of enhanced maintenance rate at 35 paise per sq. ft. which is against the terms and conditions of buyer's agreement. All the bills have been paid as per the agreed rate whereas maintenance services were not provided properly. He, therefore, requested that the opposite parties may be directed to withdraw the bill and provide satisfactory maintenance services. This was contested by the opposite parties stating that most of the owner/occupants had not paid the maintenance charges, maintenance services have collapsed and considering the increased cost of water, electricity, salary of staff, etc. it has become inevitable to increase the charges from 20 paise to 35 paise per sq. ft.

(2.) AFTER going through the records of the case and affidavits filed by the parties and hearing the parties, the District Forum held that there was serious deficiency of service and directed the opposite parties to withdraw this bill and subsequent bills. Further, the District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000 to the complainant for unnecessary harassment including cost of the case. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, Star Estate Management Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'sempl'), opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission held that there was no satisfactory and clear reason for the increase of maintenance charges from 20 paise to 35 paise per sq. ft. Cost factors have not been enumerated at all. There is another clause in the agreement that if the occupier of the flat refused to pay maintenance charges, the appellant shall be entitled to file civil suit for the recovery on account of increase maintenance charges in the Court. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the compensation awarded to the respondent as the appellant had raised the demand upon the buyer presuming that the buyer alone is responsible to pay arrears of charges irrespective of his being not in occupation or irrespective of his having let out the premises to a tenant. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, SEMPL has filed this revision. Two issues are required to be considered by us:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner our attention to Clause 13 of the agreement between Ansal Properties and Industries Limited and Mr. S. M. Krishnatry, the complainant, wherein it is mentioned that "the buyer agrees and binds himself to pay to SEMPL maintenance and service charges at the rate of 20 paise per month per sq. ft. of the area of his flat to be utilised by SEMPL for the purposes listed in the Second Schedule of this agreement. It will be raised after every three years by 10%. Buyer agrees to this acceleration and further specifically agrees that the promoter or SEMPL may suitably increase the aforesaid rate of maintenance and service charges in the event of an increase in the above mentioned factors of cost particularly official levies and charges e. g. increase in electric tariff, water charges, etc. " Further he drew our attention to the agreement signed between SEMPL and Mr. Krishnatry dated 15th October, 1980 pursuant to the agreement signed on the same date betwen Ansal Properties and the buyer wherein it is mentioned in Clause 2 that "it is agreed between the parties that SEMPL will present the bill for maintenance and service charges monthly in advance to be paid by the buyer before the close of the month for which the bill has been drawn up. The buyer agrees that if the bill is not paid by the last day of the month, he will pay to SEMPL, interest on the arrears at the rate of 18 per cent per annum". He further submitted that SEMPL was regularly sending the bills to the owners with copy to the tenant which was paid by the tenant regularly, but when the rate was increased from 20 paise to 35 paise per sq. ft. the tenant stopped paying. He further submitted that the State Commission has wrongly orderd that the SEMPL can file a civil suit though there was no clause in the agreement governing this. Accordingly, the orders of the lower Fora may be set aside.