PRESENT:- Complainant by Adv. R.V. Awati Opponent No. 1& 4 to 9 by Adv. Kulkarni Opponent No. 2 & 3 by Adv. Dayanand ORDER (Per- Mr. S. S. Vyavahare, Honble President.) The opponents in these two complaints, the relief claimed by the complainants against the opponents are common and therefore for the purpose of convenience both the complaints are disposed of by common judgment.
1) The complainants have filed these two complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opponents for getting compensation, alleging deficiency of service on their part.
2) Facts giving rise to the present complaint in short are as under.
3) Complainants are the tenants in Manish Building situated at Mulund-West and have occupied flat No. 6 & 7 respectively. Opponent No.1 and 4 to 9 were the original owners of the complainants in respect of flat No. 6 & 7 and complainants were tenant of opponent No.1 & 4 to
9. Manisha building required recurring repairs as it was in dilapidated condition. In the year 2005, opponent No.1 & 4 to 9 have sold Manish Building to opponent No.2 who is developer. Since the building was in dilapidated condition the complainants have left their respective premises and shifted to alternate accommodation leaving behind their household articles in Room No. 6 & 7.
4) It is the contention of the complainant that in the month of May-2008 when complainants visited their premises they were shocked to see that Manish Building was partly demolished and their household articles were missing. The opponent No.3 who was present on the spot as a supervisor had informed the complainants that opponent No.2 is developing the said building. According to the complainants the opponents in connivance, with intend to defeat the bonafide rights of the complainants have started the developing the said building without prior consent of the complainants and therefore the alleged act on the part of opponents amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Therefore by filing the present complaints the complainants have claimed premises in developed building, and also claim their household articles with compensation and cost of the complaint.
5) The opponents have resisted the complaint by filing their spate written statements and contended that, the complainants complaints are false, frivolous and not based on trued facts. The opponents have denied all adverse allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. They have also challenged the maintainability of the complaint as well as jurisdiction of the forum to entertain the complaint. According to opponent No. 1 & 4 to 9 the complainants their tenants in room No. 6 & 7 however, on 20/10/2005 they have sold out Manish Building out rightly, along with complainants to opponent No.2. Therefore since 20/10/2005 their relations with complainants as landlord and tenants have come to an end. So also they have no nexus in any way with Manisha Building and therefore the complainants have filed false complaint against them. They further state that in the year 1975-76 and 1986-87 respectively the complainants have shifted to alternate accommodation by leaving room No. 7 & 6 respectively. Therefore even remotely they are not concern either with the complainants or with Manisha building. Therefore they pray to dismiss the complaint.
6) Opponent No. 2 & 3 have contended that, M/s. Shagun Enterprises is the registered partnership firm of which opponent No.3 is the partner. By virtues of registered sale deed dated 20/10/2005 they became the owner of Manisha Building. They also denied any deficiency of service and state that complainants complaint before consumer Forum is not maintainable.
7) On respective contentions of the parties following point arise for our considerations. Our findings are recorded against the same. POINTS Whether this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint? .No Do the complainants prove that the opponents have indulged in deficiency of service/ unfair trade practice by demolishing Manish Building without the consent of the complainant? Redundant. Whether complainants are entitled to get compensation? No
4. What order? .As per final order REASONS
8)Before going to evidence on record it will not be out of place to go through some of the facts which are undisputed.
9)It is admitted position that the complainants were tenants of opponent No. 1 & 4 to 9 in Building and were occupying Room No. 6 & 7 respectively. It is also admitted position that on 20/10/2005 opponent No. 1 & 4 to 9 sold Building opponent No.2 by registered sale deed followed by conveyance deed. It is also not disputed position that the complainants have been shifted to alternate accommodation leaving room No. 6 & 7 with landlord. The demolition of Building by opponent 2 is not disputed. 10)The opponents by contending strongly that, the complainants who were tenants in Manish Building have come before the forum wrongly and therefore this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. To substantiate this contention the reliance is placed by the opponents on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Laxmichand Shah V/s. Sakarben Kanji Chandan reported in (2001) 9 Supreme Court Page No. 604 and judgment of national Commission in the case of Laxmi Singhania V/s. Smt. Rani devei Lohia reportd in 1992 (1) National Commission . Wherein it has been observed that, the dispute between tenants and landlord does not Page 109 come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. 11)The learned counsel for the complainants in response to the said submission submitted that, the opponent No. 2 & 3 have not accepted the complainants as a tenant though the opponent No.1 & 4to 9 have sold Building on 20/10/2005 to opponent No.2 along with complainants. Since the opponent No. 2 & 3 are denying the status of the complainants as a tenant and even then they are redeveloping the Manish building by reconstructing the same without getting any permission from the complainant. Therefore complaint filed by the complainants is perfect. 12)We have gone through the respective submissions and provisions of Bombay Rent Control Act. It is significant to note that opponent No.1 & 4to 9 who admittedly the landlord of the complainants have sold Building to opponent No.2 along with complainants. The written statement of opponent No. 2 & 3 unequivocally goes to show that the complaint between landlord and tenant cannot be filed under the consumer protection act. Therefore it cannot be said that opponent No.2 & 3 have denied the complainant as tenant. Even assuming for a movement that opponent No. 2 & 3 have denied the status of the complainant as a tenant recourse is a available to the complainants as a tenant to seek declaration as a tenant before Civil Court by filing suit for declaration. However, while considering the relationship between complainants and opponents as a landlord and tenant certainly this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Our view has been fortified the judgment of Supreme Court and National Commission referred above. Therefore we record out findings on point No. 1 in negative. And in view of negative findings on point No.1 further hold point No.2 as redundant and proceed to pass following order. ORDER The complaints are not maintainable, hence disposed off. No order as to cost. [HON'BLE MR. S S VYAVAHARE] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. S.V.KALAL] MEMBER