SOMNATH PUNJU NERKAR Vs. RAMESH HIRALAL KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -PETITIONER/builder was opposite party No. 1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/complainants purchased a flat on the ground floor, measuring 600 sq. ft. from the petitioner on 25. 9. 1996 for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,20,000 out of which amount of Rs. 3,00,000 was paid to the petitioner. In continuation of the agreement dated 25. 9. 1996 a supplementary agreement between the parties was executed on 3. 12. 1998 which stipulated that the possession of flat will be given within 15 months to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On possession not being given, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed complaint which was contested by the petitioner. Although, sale of flat of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 4,20,000, receipt of part sale consideration, execution of two agreements dated 25. 9. 1996 and 3. 12. 1998 were not disputed but it was pleaded that one Chintaman D. Gaikwad was occupying old structure, admeasuring 150 sq. ft. and the petitioner wanted to build two wings of building in place of the existing old structure. Mr. Gaikwad was the tenant and he was accommodated in a flat. Flat to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was to be given from the building to be constructed in place of the old structure. However, Mr. Gaikwad refused to vacate the old structure. It, thus, became impossible for the petitioner to give possession of the flat to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Litigation by way of second appeal with Mr. Gaikwad is still pending. By the order dated 5. 6. 1997, the District Forum allowed the complaint partly with direction to the petitioner to hand over possession of the flat mentioned in agreement (s) to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on their paying balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,20,000. Dissatisfied with Forum's order, the petitioner filed appeal which has been partly allowed by the State Commission by the order dated 4. 2. 2008 modifying the order of the District Forum. Possession of another flat No. 3 has been ordered to be given by the petitioner and in case the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are unwilling to accept that flat, the petitioner is to pay Rs. 25. 00 lakh in lieu of the flat minus Rs. 1,20,000 which is due from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are, however, not interested to take possession of said flat No. 3.

(2.) WHILE challenging the order of State Commission, the submission advanced by Mr. S. B. Prabhavalkar for the petitioner is that the Commission has not given reasons how the amount of Rs. 25. 00 lakh towards compensation has been arrived at. In view of litigation with Mr. Gaikwad, it is not possible to deliver possession of the booked flat by the petitioner who is ready to deliver possession of flat No. 3 after completing it and obtaining occupancy certificate from the Municipal Authority to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 2 who is present, says that she has no faith in the petitioner and is not interested in taking possession of flat No. 3. Out of the sale consideration of Rs. 4,20,000, the petitioner had admittdly received Rs. 3,50,000 and balance amount of Rs. 1,20,000 is to be deducted from the amount to be paid towards compensation pursuant to the State Commission's order as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not ready to accept allotment of said flat No. 3. Thus, the net amount receivable by way of compensation by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is Rs. 20,80,000. Admittedly, flat was booked in the month of September, 1996. By now, more than 11 years have passed and the booked flat has not been made available to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is a matter of common knowledge that there has been steep rise in the prices of properties throughout India including Pune during the said period. Said amount receivable also includes the component of interest on the paid amount of Rs. 3,00,000. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no concern with the litigation between the petitioner and Mr. Gaikwad and if they purchase flat they will have to pay the escalated price. In the facts and circumstances of case, the award of Rs. 20,80,000 as compensation by the petitioner to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is quite reasonable. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed being without any merit. R. P. dismissed.