Decided on September 08,2003



P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT - (1.) THE complainant is a registered society formed for the welfare of its members who are the owners of Budha View Apartments. The first opposite party, hereinafter called ˜the builder entered into an agreement with the second opposite party, the owner on 11.9.1993 to develop the property belonging to the latter. As per the terms of the agreement 65 per cent of the build -up area should be allotted to the builder while 35 per cent to the owner. The builder in all constructed 40 residential flats out of which 14 have fallen to the share of the owner while the remaining 26 to the builder. The first opposite party entered into agreements of sale in respect of his 26 flats, received consideration and put the prospective purchasers in possession of their respective flats though they were incomplete. The second opposite party also executed sale deeds in favour of prospective purchasers except in 9 cases who are members of the society since some of the flat owners by their letter dated 25.5.1997 complaining of certain unfinished works for which there was no reply. Even the owner also issued a notice for which also there was no reply. The complainant society thereafter issued a notice on 25.3.1998 for which a reply was given stating that many unfinished works have been completed and if the flat owners contribute for municipal water connection the same will be provided. That apart it is mentioned that some members still owe some balance to the first opposite party. There appears to be a dispute between the opposite parties 1 and 2 due to which the builder is not completing the complex and opposite party No. 2 is not registering the flats. Therefore, this complaint is filed seeking completion of the unfinished works and convey the flats to the owners or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs.
(2.) THE builder in his written version stated that Flat Nos. 108 and 408 are already conveyed by registered sale deeds in favour of the purchasers. He admitted that construction of the apartments is complete except lift and metro water supply. It is further stated that talks are going on with the landlady and very soon things will be settled and registration of the unregistered flats would be attended to.
(3.) IN the written version filed by the second opposite party, it is stated that she is the owner and the first opposite party approached her with a proposal to develop 2051 sq. yards of land and a development agreement dated 11.9.1993 was executed. As per the terms of the said agreement, it is incumbent upon the builder to complete the project before getting the sale deeds executed and registered. The first opposite party without completing the construction is insisting on execution of the sale deeds in favour of third parties. However on 8.8.1996 the builder entered into a supplemental agreement with her. According to which, he agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/ - in addition to 35 per cent share of the built -up area. Though the first opposite party issued a cheque for Rs. 3,50,000/ - the same was bounced and a criminal case was filed against him. There is no privity of contract between herself and the purchasers. As there was no change in the attitude of the first opposite party she filed OS No. 580/1999 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad impleading the complainant herein also claiming a decree for Rs. 12 lakhs towards compensation and for a further sum of Rs. 5 lakhs towards special damages. The complainant filed the affidavit evidence of its Secretary Smt. Malathi Lal besides filing Exs. A -1 to A -10. The opposite parties filed Exs. B -1 to B -7 besides filing their respective affidavits. The point, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties if so to what extent?;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.