R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing Complaint Case No. 259 of 2006 filed in the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ranchi.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 (Smt. Krishna Basu) filed the said complaint against the petitioner and others mainly on the ground that inspite of several requests, the sale deed of the flat in question has not been executed and registered. Mr. P.K. Bhowmik, appearing for the petitioner submitted that 'flat' is not covered under the definition of 'Goods' under the Consumer Protection Act; and, therefore, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction; and that the remedy of the complainant is to file a suit. He further submitted that the Consumer Forum cannot direct for execution and registration of proportionate 1/16 share of land with common area. He also submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation.
(3.) THE said arguments cannot be accepted In view of the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority \ M.K. Gupta : AIR1994SC787 and Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank : AIR2007SC2198 , the complaint in question is maintainable. Then at page 23 of the writ petition, the petitioner has admitted that he is the exclusive owner of the land over which 16 flats were constructed including Flat No. 7 in question. In the case of sale of flat, the proportionate share of the land with common area has to be transferred. Further, as the cause of action is continuing, the complaint is not barred by limitation. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, no costs;