Skip to main content

Tenants of buildings under redevelopment are consumers

More and more old and dilapidated buildings are going in for redevelopment. The builder makes money by selling flats to new purchasers, but considers it onerous to provide accommodation to the existing tenants without charging money. Since free services are excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, would the tenants be entitled to file a consumer complaint for deficiency in service against a builder?

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.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Tenants-of-buildings-under-redevelopment-are-consumers/articleshow/44796079.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
7 comments
Read more