CONSUMERS INTERESTS PROTECTION AND RESEARCH ASSOCIATION CIPRA vs RAMESH CHABRA

-HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant. The matter is being disposed of at the admission stage. The unsuccessful complainant preferred this appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad dated 24. 9. 2007 dismissing the complaint on the ground that the dispute between landlord and tenant does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as laid down by the Supreme Court in Laxmiben Laxmichand Shah v. Sakerben Kanji Chandan and Ors. , reported in I (2001) CPJ 7 (SC)=viii (2000) SLT 735.

THE facts in brief are that the complainant has taken on lease a flat belonging to opposite party No. 1 on payment of rent of Rs. 5,500 and paid an advance of Rs. 16,500. When water was leaking resulting in short circuit of electrical points and damage to the phone, fans, tubes, etc. the complainant had issued a notice to the opposite party No. 1 to rectify the defects. However, opposite party No. 1 did attend on them. Later the complainant vacated the premises. When the complainant issued notice demanding to pay the amount spent by it together with advance, opposite party No. 1 did not pay the same. Therefore, the complaint before the District Consumer Forum to refund Rs. 16,200 besides Rs. 10,00,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000 towards costs in all Rs. 10,21,200. The opposite parties resisted the complaint on the ground that the dispute was in between landlord and tenant. It cannot be termed as a consumer dispute. The premises was taken for commercial purpose and it was so mentioned in the rental agreement. The complainant had committed default in payment of rents and when the amounts were demanded, it has vacated the premises without informing the same. It need not pay any of the amounts. Therefore, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

On behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A26 were marked. On behalf of opposite parties Exs. B1 to B8 were marked. After considering the documents placed on record, the District Forum opined that the dispute was in between the landlord and tenant and the same does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, it dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant, the appellant herein, had taken on lease a flat of R. 1 (opposite party No. 1) on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 5,500. It is also not in dispute that an amount of Rs. 16,500 was taken by the opposite party No. 1 towards advance. Now the complainant alleges that since the defects were not rectified, it had vacated the premises. On the other hand, the respondents contend that there was neither leaking of water nor there was damage to the phone, etc. due to short circuit. The tenant had committed default in payment of arrears of rent and in fact it had vacated without even informing them and, therefore, they need not pay the amount.

EX facie, the allegations and counter allegations show that the dispute was mainly in between landlord and tenant. At any rate the documents do not in any way prove that there was short due to leakage of water and that could be attributed to the opposite party. There was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The Supreme Court in Ms. Laxmiben Laxmichand Shah v. Sakerben Chandan (supra), held that the lease agreement between landlord and tenant did not disclose that the landlord had to attend on these services in respect of maintenance of the subject building for consideration. Landlord and tenant do not come into the category of consumers. Consequently, the present dispute does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Evidently, the case projected by the complainant was in regard to the amount that was paid by him towards advance besides compensation towards mental agony, etc. on the ground of leakage of water. In the first place it was not proved. Even assuming without admitting that these amounts have to be deducted from advance of rentals it could not be redressed in the Forum. We do not see how the claimant could claim these amounts by invoking the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. If the complainant/appellant herein had to get amount paid towards rent advance, it had to approach the Appropriate Court for recovery of the amount. The complainant cannot term it as a consumer dispute. The District Forum is justified in stating that the dispute does not attract the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law in this regard. In the circumstances, we dismiss at this appeal at the stage of admission. No costs. Appeal dismissed.