Decided on February 27,2020

Lakadwala Developers Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Amarjeet Singh Baryam Singh Respondents


V.K. Jain,J. - (1.) The complainant, who is an ex-serviceman, booked a residential flat with the appellant in a project namely "Maaria Annexe" which the appellant was to develop in Mumbai, in August, 2005 for a consideration of Rs.24,65,000/-. A registered agreement dated 18.3.2006 was also executed between the parties on payment of the entire sale consideration to the appellant. Since the construction was not completed and the possession was not offered to him, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint, seeking possession of the flat, with compensation etc.
(2.) The complaint was resisted by the appellant, which admitted the agreement executed with the complainant as well as the payment received from him. It was inter-alia stated in the written version filed by the appellant that the appellant had been granted approval for development of a piece of land under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of Government of Maharashtra and therefore, was required to demolish the existing old dwelling units and construct new multi storied buildings. The appellant was to accommodate the tenants of the old structure and was permitted to sell the other part of the new construction to be raised by them. It was further stated by the appellant that the construction got obstructed on account of an encroacher Mr. Nilkantha Narayan having not vacated the piece of land occupied by him. They approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of a writ petition wherein the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme was directed to consider the matter and pass an appropriate order. The Chief Executive Officer passed an order on 20.11.2007, directing MCGM to decide the request of Mr. Nilkantha Narayan for grant of lease in respect of land admeasuring 112.52 sq. mtr. However, MCGM did not dispose of the matter. It was also stated in the written version filed by the appellant that they had applied to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for grant of 4 FSI in accordance with high density scheme and since there was no progress on their proposal, they sought conversion of the project from SRA-225 to SRA-269 scheme, which was also pending. It was also stated in the written version that in terms of Clause 13 of the agreement, in case of delay beyond the control of the appellant, the complainant could claim refund of the entire amount paid by him without interest or penalty. The appellant also expressed his readiness and willingness to hand over possession of the flat to the complainant on completion of the project.
(3.) The State Commission vide impugned order dated 08.1.2013 directed as under: "1. Complaint is partly allowed. 2. Opponents are directed to hand over possession of flat No.703 on seventh floor of B Wing in the proposed 'Maaria Annexe' admeasuring 712.80 sq. ft. within a period of four months from the date of the order. OR If fails to hand over the possession, opponents are directed to pay 99,79,200/- market price of the flat within a period of two months, failing which, the amount will carry interest of 9% p.a. till realization of the amount. 3. Opponent to bear their own costs and pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.";

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