SUBHRA MUKHERJEE & 2 ORS Vs. TAPAN CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 25-08-2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent herein who was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Paganas, Alipore (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum') has been allowed and the State Commission had directed the present petitioners to handover the possession of the shop room in question as well as to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the said shop room in favour of the respondent herein on receiving the consideration amount in full within 45 days of the date of order failing which the petitioners shall pay punitive damages @Rs.100/- per diem till the order is complied with in full.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the complaint are that the respondent herein was an existing tenant of a shop room at premises No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kolkata. A development agreement was entered into between the petitioners herein, who are the land owners, the developers, who are not a party to the complaint and the respondent herein (complainant), the tenant of a shop in the existing building. The entire building was to be demolished by the developer and a new construction was to be made. A tripartite agreement was entered into between the petitioners herein, the respondent as also the developer on 02-04-2008 in which a specific clause was added that the complainant shall handover the possession of the shop room which is under his tenancy to the developer for construction of a new complex and after the construction is made a new shop at the ground floor was to be given to him and a conveyance deed will also be executed and he will be treated as a co-owner insofar as the shop is concerned. A further right was given to the complainant to let out the shop to any other person or to sell it.

(3.) Relying upon the said clause, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that as a right was given to the complainant to let out the shop or to sell the same, he ceases to be a tenant and, therefore, also not a 'consumer' under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').