Kalidas Mukherjee, J. (President) - (1.) THESE are the two Appeals arising out of the same judgment and order passed by learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit -I in CC 137 of 2006 allowing the complaint and directing the OPs jointly and severally to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainant in respect of flat in question and car parking space on receipt of the sum of Rs. 1,35,000 from the Complainant on the date of registration and the registration and allied charges shall have to be borne, by the Complainant. The OP No. 2 was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10.000 within 45 days from the date of communication of the order. The Complainant has preferred the Appeal bearing No. 252 of 2012 praying for an order to modify the impugned order dated 30.3.12. The Complainant prays for an order that the direction upon the Complainant to pay Rs. 1,35,000 be set aside. The other Appeal bearing No. 198 of 2012 has been preferred by the Developer.
(2.) THE case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that he was interested to purchase the flat bearing No. A comprising two -bed rooms, one kitchen, two bathrooms, one drawing -cum -sitting room and balcony measuring more or less 1,000 square feet including super builtup area which has been described in Schedule -B to the agreement for sale dated 6.6.1999 together with undivided proportionate share in the land more fully described in Schedule -C to the agreement as also the right to enjoy the common areas and common facilities attached thereto and more fully described in Schedule -D to the agreement for sale. The consideration money was fixed at Rs. 14,50,000. The Complainant has altogether paid Rs. 18,50,000 by cheques and cash which was in excess of Rs. 2,50,000 and car parking space for Rs. 1,50,000 out of the agreed sale price of Rs. 14,50,000. On 25.1.2002 the Complainant in writing acknowledged the delivery of vacant possession of flat No. A measuring builtup area of 830 square ft. and super builtup area of 220 square feet totalling to 1050 square ft. along with the request to calculate the price regarding the extra area and extra fittings although no extra work was ever done. On 24.10.2005 the Complainant received a letter from the OP through learned Advocate demanding the payment of an additional sum of Rs. 7,23,000 on different heads. Under such circumstances, the complaint was filed before the learned District Forum. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Developer has submitted that the learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint and that the petition of complaint was barred by limitation. It is contended that the agreement for sale was insufficiently stamped and the original agreement was not produced. It is contended that the money receipt was not produced to prove that the Complainant has paid the consideration money. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of Sections -6 and 12A of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 the learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint. It is submitted that the possession was delivered on 25.1.2002 and the lawyer's notice was sent on 30.9.2005 and the complaint was filed in the year 2006. It is submitted that the period of limitation is two years from the date of delivery of possession. It is submitted that the lawyer's notice cannot extend the period of limitation and, moreover, it was sent after the expiry of two years from the date of delivery of possession. It is contended that the cause of action arose on the date of delivery of possession. It is submitted that the question of limitation was not dealt with by the learned District Forum and the OP filed a petition in the complaint case challenging the maintainability of the petition of complaint. The Learned Counsel for the Developer has referred to the decisions reported in : (2006) AIR (Cal) 95, Narayan Chandra Ghosh v. Biswajit Lahiri; : 2012 (3) CLJ (Cal) 291, Smt. Rita Das v. Mrs. Jayashri Ghosh & Ors.; : 2014 (1) CHN (Cal) 50, Bithi Das v. Debabrata Majumdar; : III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) : 1996 (SLT Soft) 1386 : (1996) 6 Supreme 745, Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. N.K. Modi; : VIII (1999) SLT 587 : 1998 (8) Supreme 319, Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. J.C. Budharaja, Government and Mining Contractor; : (2001) AIR (Pat) 151, State of Bihar v. Gobind Prasad Agarwal; CO. No. 1410 of 1999, Dr. Swapnadin Lahiri v. Tridib Das Roy; : 1995 (SLT Soft) 875 : JT 1995 (9) SC 419, State of Orissa & Anr., etc. v. Sri Damodar Das; : IX (2007) SLT 623 : 2007 (7) Supreme 402, Hariom Agrawal v. Prakash ChandMalviya; : 1961 (SLT Soft) 179 : (1962) O AIR (SC) 110, State of Bihar v. Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers Ltd.; : 1971 (SLT Soft) 554 : (1971) O AIR (SC) 1070, Jupudi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao; : (1993) 4 SCC 338, Panchu Gopal Bose v. Board of Trustees for Port of Calcutta.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Respondent/Purchaser has submitted that in the grounds stated in the Memo of Appeal no such objection was taken by the Appellant on the point that the complaint was not maintainable before the learned District Forum on the ground of the provision contained in Sections -6 and 12A of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993. It is submitted that the additional work was done to the tune of Rs. 2,89,000. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Purchaser has further stated that the Developer was demanding various extra amounts. It has been contended that the agreement has been fully acted upon and consideration amount has been fully paid. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Purchaser has referred to the decision reported in Mr. Trance B. Martins & Anr. v. Mrs. Mafalda Maria Teresa Rodrigues, : VII (1999) SLT 92 : III (1999) CLT 238 (SC) : II (1999) CPJ 41 (SC) : 1999 (7) Supreme 379.;