VITHAL MANIK PATIL Vs. LILY PETER LEWIS (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant was a tenant of late Shri Atmaram Narayan Vaity, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No. 1 to 8, in respect of a room on the second floor of building in Mulund (East), Mumbai. The landlords of the complainant were desirous of constructing a four storied building on the plot adjoining to the plot on which the said property was situated. A tri-partite agreement was, therefore, executed between the appellant in F.A. No. 258 of 2016, namely, Mr. Vithal Manik Patil on the one hand, Mr. Atmaram Narayan Vaity, the landlord and the complainant whereunder, a residential flat admeasuring 532 sq. ft. of carpet area was agreed to be given to the complainant in the building, which Mr. Vithal Manik Patil was to construct on the adjoining plot owned by late Shri Atmaram Narayan Vaity. The said agreement to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-

(2.) Since despite demolishing the balcony of the flat occupied by the complainant and closing the windows of his kitchen and bedroom, the possession of the flat in the building constructed on the adjoining plot was not given to him in terms of the above referred tri-partite agreement, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the landlords as well as by the builder. However, the execution of the tri-partite agreement was not disputed either by the builder or by the landlords in their respective written versions filed before the State Commission. On the other hand, they rather tried to shift the blame on each other. It was also submitted in their written version that the said tri-partite agreement had not been registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar. They also took the preliminary objection that the complainant was not a consumer and the matter did not fall within the domain of the consumer forum.