S P KANNAPPAN Vs. BANK OF MADURA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri S. P. Kannappan has filed a complaint under Sections 10 (a) (i), 10b and Sec.36b (a) of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) against the respondents, Bank of Madura Ltd. as represented by its Branch Managers, Fort Branch, Bazar Gate Street and Ghatkopar Branch, Bombay and Poonam View Co-operative Housing Ltd. It has been stated therein that Shri K. N. Kannappan Chettiar had purchased a flat bearing No.3 consisting of 3 rooms measuring 625 sq. ft from Poonam View Housing Society Ltd. , R. B. Mehta Road, Ghatkopar (East), Bombay and also became a member of the respondent Society by purchasing its 5 shares. Besides, 3 other flats were purchased by Smt. S. P. Visalakshi, Shri K. N. Subbiah and Smt. N. S. Sigappiachi, petitioner's mother, father and grandmother respectively. It is further added that the petitioner's grandfather obtained a loan of Rs.50,000/- at the interest rate of 12.5% per annum from the Bank of Madura. Fort Branch for the purchase of the flat. The loan application was made on 2.12.1974 and it was sanctioned on the condition that the flat would be leased to the Bank and the loan amount would be adjusted by crediting the monthly rent due from the respondent. The flat was occupied by the Ghatkopar Branch of the respondent Bank, on lease, for a period of 10 years, and the respondent has been in occupation of the flat ever since.

(2.) It has been further stated that a Suit No.679 filed by the respondent Madura Bank against Shri Kannappa Chettiar for the recovery of loan of Rs.50,000/- was decreed ex parte on 1.11.1996. Even though the respondent has been in occupation of the flat ever since it was taken, not a single paise has been paid by way of rent, during this period. It has been further alleged that the respondent has been using most unfair methods and indulging in monopolistic, restrictive and unfair trade practices within the meaning of Sections 36a, 2 (i), (iii) and 2 (o) (ii) of the Act.

(3.) The applicant/complainant's Advocate Mr. C. T. Selvamani was given a hearing on the question of maintainability of the complaint/ compensation application. It is admitted that a loan of Rs.50,000/- at the interest rate of 12.5% was obtained from the respondent, Bank of Madura. According to him there was an agreement that the flat purchased by the applicant/complainant's father would be taken on lease by the respondent Bank and the lease was for a period of 10 years initially. However, neither a copy of the lease deed nor the agreement between the applicant/complainant and the respondent regarding the amount of rent and its mode of payment by way of adjustment against the loan amount has been filed alongwith the complaint/application.