RAJESH GUPTA Vs. CHANDIGARH OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant is a Chartered Accountant by profession, who is doing his own practice. The Opposite Parties, are promoters and developers of Techno Knowledge Park project, for Fashion Technology, situated at Sector 90, SAS Nagar, District Mohali, Punjab, under the name -Design and Insignia of Industrial Knowledge (Fashion Technology) Park. In the month of April 2010, the Opposite Parties floated a small investor scheme, regarding the allotment of design studios, in the aforesaid project. In the advertisement, the Opposite Parties stated that the project would operate from 01.09.2010. The complainant was allured by such advertisement, and, submitted an application dated 09.05.2010, and Rs.1 lac, through cheque no.572613 dated 09.05.2010, drawn on UCO Bank, New Delhi, to the Opposite Parties, for buying a design studio, in their project, for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by way of self employment. The Opposite Parties acknowledged the payment, and issued receipt no.3001 dated 09.05.2010. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties allotted Design Studio No.38, measuring 335 square feet, 6th floor, in "Design Pavillion II". Buyer Developer Agreement dated 16.05.2010 Annexure -3, was executed, between the complainant, and Opposite Party No.1. According to Clause (1) of the Buyer Developer Agreement dated 16.05.2010 Annexure -3, the price of the unit was fixed @Rs.22,11,670/ -. However the Opposite Parties had offered discount to the complainant, if the payment was made in lumpsum. Hence, the amount of Rs.19,68,386/ -, was finally settled, between the parties, after the discount. It was stated that the balance amount, after deducting booking amount, aforesaid, came to be Rs.18,68,386/ -, which was paid by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, through cheque no.572614 dated 20.05.2010, drawn on UCO Bank, New Delhi.

(2.) ACCORDING to Clause 15 of the Buyer Developer Agreement dated 16.05.2010 Annexure -3, the date of completion of construction of the said design studio was 01.09.2010. It was further mentioned in the said Clause that if the developer failed to hand over possession of the the said studio, by the due date, it shall be liable to pay the buyer, the damage charges @Rs.50/ - per square feet, per month. It was further stated that till the date of filing the complaint, possession of the unit, in question, was not delivered, as construction of the same was not complete. It was further stated that, thus, the Opposite Parties were liable to pay damage charges @Rs.50/ - per square feet, per month, from 01.09.2010, onwards.

(3.) IT was further stated that according to Clause 25 of the Buyer Developer Agreement dated 16.05.2010 Annexure -3, if the buyer wanted to run his own business, in the said unit, he would be entitled to rental income @12% per annum, on the amount deposited by him (buyer). However, if the buyer wanted to sell unit back to the Company, after the expiry of 36 months, then he was entitled to a sum of Rs.33,17,505/ - minus ( -) the payable amount to the buyer, in 36 months. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties failed to abide by their commitment. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 also got executed the lease deed dated 21.06.2010, between the complainant and Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that rental amount, came to Rs.25,803/ -, per month, and the same was evident from copy of the cheque dated 16.10.2010, issued by Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 partially complied with the said Clause No.25 of the Buyer Developer Agreement dated 16.05.2010 Annexure -3, by making payment of the rental income to the tune of Rs.25,803/ - per month, to the complainant from July 2010 to September 2010, through cheques. It was further stated that except for one cheque, in question, all other cheques issued by Opposite Party No.1, issued in his favour, were returned unpaid, for want of sufficient funds. It was further stated that Rs.9,28,908/ -, was over due to the complainant, from 01.10.2010 to 30.09.2013, on account of monthly rent.