Case Study: Jagdishbhai had a tailoring shop on tenancy basis in Moon House. The landlord sold the property to Surbhih Realtors, which decided to demolish the old building and construct a commercial property. Jagdishbhai was to be given shop no. 1 admeasuring 26.29 sq m in the new property in lieu of his existing shop. An agreement was executed, under which the builder agreed to bear expenses of registration of the sale deed. Possession of the shop was to be given in a month. In case of delay, the builder had agreed to pay Rs 10,000 per month.
The builder failed to give possession of the shop and offered an alternative one on the rear side of the complex. Since it was not acceptable to Jagdishbhai, he filed a complaint before the district forum for a direction to the builder to hand over shop no. 1 and to pay Rs 10,000 per month for the delay. The builder opposed the maintainability of the complaint, contending that Jagdishbhai was not a consumer since the transaction did not involve any payment or consideration. The builder argued it was a landlord-tenant dispute and not maintainable before the consumer forum.
The district forum overruled these objections and directed the builder to hand over possession of shop no. 1 in accordance with the agreement and execute the sale deed. If this direction was not complied within 30 days, the builder would also be liable to pay Rs 10,000 compensation per month.
Both the parties appealed to the Gujarat state commission. While Jagdishbhai wanted the compensation enhanced, the builder wanted the order set aside. The commission concluded that Jagdishbahi was not a consumer as the transaction was in respect to transfer of tenancy rights to ownership property and as the service was not hired for consideration. It allowed the builder's appeal, set aside the forum order and dismissed the complaint.
Jagdishbhai filed a revision before the national commission, pointing out that the earlier landlord-tenant relationship had ceased to exist with the execution of the agreement for allotment of the shop on ownership basis. He also argued that consideration need not be in cash but could be in kind. So, handing over the old tenanted premises would form consideration for allotment and possession of the shop in the redeveloped property. The national commission allowed Jagdishbhai's revision, holding that he was a consumer, entitled to file a complaint against the builder for deficiency in service.
The commission held the builder liable. Since 10 years had gone by, it directed that the builder should either give possession of the shop, else allot another shop of the same area at a prominent place in the complex. The builder was also asked to pay Rs 15 lakh, so that it would fetch a monthly interest of Rs 10,000. Further, compensation of Rs 2 lakh for undue harassment was also awarded.
Impact: Tenants who are harassed by builders in a development project can approach the consumer fora. (The author is a consumer activist and has won the government of India's national youth award for consumer protection. His e-mail address is jehangir.gai.articles@hotmail.com)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/followceleb.cms?alias=Tenants of buildings under redevelopment,Consumer Protection Act
Stay updated on the go with The Times of India's mobile apps. Click here to download it for your device.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Tenants of buildings under redevelopment are consumers
Dengan url
http://cegahkeropostulang.blogspot.com/2014/10/tenants-of-buildings-under.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Tenants of buildings under redevelopment are consumers
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Tenants of buildings under redevelopment are consumers
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar