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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more