Govindrao M.Navani vs City And Industrial Development Corpn. of Maharashtra Ltd.

PETITIONER herein who was the original complainant before the District Forum has filed the present revision petition being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in favour of City & Industrial Development Corpn. of Maharashtra Ltd.(CIDCO) (hereinafter referred to as the ?Respondent?).

PETITIONER has contended in this case that he had been allotted residential plot at CIDCO Colony, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra by the Respondent on 17.12.1979 and possession of the plot was given on 05.11.1981. Thereafter, after obtaining necessary approval to carry out constructions on the said plot he started construction. However, due to financial difficulties, he could not complete the construction within the stipulated time of 3 years and therefore, sought permission from Respondent for extension of time to complete the construction. Respondent, extended the time subject to the condition that PETITIONER will complete the construction minimum upto the plinth level before 26.07.1986. PETITIONER has contended, that he completed the construction upto plinth level before 26.07.1986 but despite his repeated requests and visits to the office of Respondent, it did not respond to his requests for extension of time to build above the plinth level and complete the construction and instead the allotment of the plot was illegally cancelled on 09.03.1989. Since the PETITIONER had spent a large sum of money for the said plot, he approached Respondent through his advocate and requested vide letter dated 03.07.1989 that the termination of his lease being illegal and one-sided, should be set aside and he may be given time to complete construction of his house. Respondent, however, refused the request of the PETITIONER and by its letter dated 15.09.1995 informed the PETITIONER that since he had not completed the construction within the stipulated time, the allotment of the said plot has been terminated on 09.03.1989. There was no response from the Respondent to his repeated requests in this connection and instead he received a letter from the Respondent on 15.09.1995 informing him that the allotment of his plot had been cancelled in view of the fact that the lease agreement had actually been terminated on 09.03.1989. PETITIONER immediately wrote a letter to Respondent informing him that he had not received any such letter and that he should be given at least one opportunity to complete the construction of the plot. Respondent, however, refused the request vide its letter dated 02.11.1995. Petitioner, thereafter, filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Respondent may be directed to give appropriate compensation to him for the loss suffered along with litigation cost.

Respondent denied the above contentions and stated that as per the terms and conditions, Petitioner should have fully completed the construction within 3 years and since he had failed to do so, Respondent asked the Petitioner to take back his money instead of which Petitioner filed the complaint.

DISTRICT Forum after hearing both parties and considering the evidence produced before it allowed the complaint by accepting the contentions of the Petitioner. It, therefore, directed the Respondents to cancel the termination dated 09.03.1989 of Plot No.6 and re-allot it to the Petitioner within two months from the date of the order and also grant approval for construction on the said plot. Respondent was further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and costs of the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, Respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum regarding payment of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and costs. It also directed the Petitioner to pay the Respondent additional lease premium as may be demanded by the Respondent while re-allotting the Plot No.6 and that Petitioner should complete the construction on the said plot within one year from the date of re-allotment by Respondent. In case of failure to pay the additional lease premium and completion of construction within one year, Respondent would be at liberty to take action to re-cancel the allotment of plot of the Petitioner.

IN pursuance of the order of the State Commission, Respondent sent a notice to the Petitioner demanding Rs.9,32,498/- as lease premium due from him within one month otherwise it would be presumed that Petitioner is not interested in the allotment of the said plot. Even though the State Commission rejected the appeal of Respondent, in view of the contradictory order of the State Commission and subsequent action of the Respondent demanding Rs.9,32,498/-, Petitioner filed a review application before the State Commission which was rejected on the grounds that it is not within the jurisdiction of the State Commission to review its own order. 8. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for both parties were present and made oral submissions. Learned counsel for Petitioner contended that the State Commission erred in passing a self-contradictory order because while dismissing the appeal of the Respondent on the grounds of deficiency in service and also stating that the real intention of the Respondent was to extract money from the Petitioner, it allowed the Respondent to extract whatever money it wants from the Petitioner for re-allotting the said plot to him by directing the Petitioner to pay the Respondent additional lease premium as may be demanded by the Respondent. Even the order of setting aside the meager compensation of Rs.5,000/- by the State Commission, should be set aside and increased in favour of the Petitioner. Counsel for Petitioner further stated that the Petitioner had in fact been paying lease premium right from 1980 to 1995 and stopped payment only when the lease was cancelled and later there was litigation before the consumer fora. It was further contended that the District Forum had rightly taken into account all these facts and, therefore, there was no direction to the Petitioner to pay any outstanding premium. Keeping in view these facts, the order of the State Commission was erroneous because while accepting deficiency in service, State Commission had blamed the Petitioner for having delayed construction and also penalized him by permitting the Respondent to collect lease premium from him. This direction in fact negated the finding of the State Commission pertaining to deficiency in service.

COUNSEL for the Respondent on the other hand reiterated the submissions made before the fora below and stated that the entire construction (and not only upto plinth level) should have been completed by 1986. Therefore, Respondent was well within its right to charge lease premium amounting to Rs.9,32,498/-. He further stated that the lease agreement was terminated on 09.03.1989, and the Petitioner had been informed vide letter dated 09.03.1989 about this fact. Further, Respondent had given an opportunity to Petitioner to apply for re-allotment. However, Petitioner did not re-apply and therefore, the Respondent was well within its right to finally cancel the plot in 1995.

WE have heard learned counsel for both parties and have carefully considered the evidence on record. It is not in dispute that there was a delay on the part of the Petitioner in making construction on the plot allotted to him by the Respondent. It is also on record that the Respondent had permitted extension of time upto 1986 to the Respondent to complete the same. According to the Respondent, the construction was to be completed during this period and not only upto plinth level, and therefore, the lease was terminated in 1989 and subsequently Petitioner was offered the said plot for re-allotment in the same year. Petitioner has denied receiving any such letter and we find from a scrutiny of the case file that no such letter purported to have been sent by the Respondent, is in evidence in this case. The only evidence available pertains to a letter dated 02.11.1995 sent by the Respondent terminating the Petitioner?s allotment. On the other hand, there is evidence on record that the Petitioner had been paying the lease premium regularly right from 1980 to 1995 and these were duly received by the Respondent by acknowledging these on revenue stamps. If the Respondent had indeed cancelled the re-allotment then it would not have continued to accept the lease premium right upto 1995. Petitioner?s contention that he stopped paying the lease premium after receiving letter of cancellation in 1995 and later during the period of litigation is also plausible and acceptable. Both the District Forum and the State Commission taking into all these facts gave a clear ruling of deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. We feel that the State Commission erred in passing an order which while acknowledging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent, directed the Petitioner to pay additional lease premium as may be demanded by the Respondent.

Keeping in view these facts, we do not agree with the order of the State Commission pertaining to the direction to the Petitioner to pay additional lease premium as demanded by the Respondent and set aside this part of the order. The order of the District Forum including payment of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost is upheld. Respondent is directed to re-allot Plot No.6 to the Petitioner with necessary approvals to enable him to complete construction of the house within one year from the date of such re-allotment. In case of failure to do so within this period, Respondent would then be at liberty to cancel the allotment of the plot. The revision petition is allowed accordingly.