Skip to main content

Builder loses Rs 26.5L for not handing over Rs 3L flat

A builder will have to pay a Chembur resident Rs 23.8 lakh for not handing possession of a 680-sq ft flat booked for Rs 2.72 lakh in 1994. P K Constructions and its former partners will also have to pay the complainant, Lokeshwar Singh Kshatriya, compensation of around Rs 6.5 lakh.

Kshatriya bought the flat in an upcoming housing complex known as Mahaveer Nagar in Mira Road. He paid Rs 2.72 lakh, along with Rs 35,320 towards maintenance charges, etc. Though the builder had agreed to grant possession soon, there was no development for several years.

Kshatriya alleged that he eventually learnt that in April 2009 the builder had demolished the building where the flat was situated and so the possibility of getting the flat vanished. In 2010, he filed a complaint in the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, praying for either possession of the flat in the same project or any other project undertaken by the builder. Alternatively, he claimed compensation of Rs 23.8 lakh, the market value of the flat in 2010.

The two partners in the construction company filed their reply to the complaint and alleged that the firm was dissolved in 1999. The former partners contended that the building was demolished and the project handed over to another builder. The new builder had shown a willingness to make another flat available to the complainant and hence the complaint was premature.

But the commission said there was no agreement to show there was a willingness to make another flat available. "The new builder to whom the opponent had assigned the rights or sold the project is not a party before us. Under the circumstances, the deficiency in service to not hand over the flat agreed upon is well-established."

It said that since it was not possible to direct the builders to hand over possession, it was proper and just to consider the alternative relief. The commission directed both partners of the erstwhile firm to pay compensation to Kshatriya.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-06/mumbai/41130409_1_rs-6-5-lakh-builder-23-8-lakh

Comments

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...