JUDGEMENT
The present complaint at the stage of admission is liable to be disposed of on the simple ground that Clause-2 of MOU provides that OP promised the complainant to pay assured return of Rs.22,523/- p.m. from April, 2014 to April, 2016 irrespective of the unit being handed over to the complainant or not. In case the unit was leased out on or before March, 2016 and lease rent was higher than the assured return, then OP would have no liability to pay the assured return. In the event of lease rent being lower than the assured return, the OP was to pay balance amount to the complainant after deducting the lease rent from assured return.
1.
Para-4 of the complaint recites that OP gave assured return from 26.07.13 to 31.03.16. The OP assured that possession would by no means be later than 3 years. However the project was still not completed and no completion certificate had been shown to the complainant.
2.
The question which arises is as to what is the effect of clause providing for assured return. The same is no more res-integra. The NC held in CC no.246/13 titled as Priti Arora vs. ARN Infrastructure decided on 06.04.17 that assured return gives character of commercial transaction. The reason being that it shows that complainant was not interested in the office space booked by him for earning livelihood by self employment. Rather he was interested in rent from letting out the space.
3.
The complaint is dismissed in limine. However complainants will be entitled to seek their remedy by filing a civil suit for recovery of amount paid by them, after excluding the time spent in the present proceedings as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engg Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995 SCC (3) 583.
4.
Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.5. File be consigned to record room.6.
(O.P. GUPTA)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
2