IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2017

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. LIZAMMA ABRAHAM. K. MEMBER

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.107/2016

Between

Complainant : Libin Varghese,

Chempananickal House,

Edavetti P.O.,

Karikkode, Thodupuzha,

Idukki.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Party : Josy K.C.,

Kunnumchira House,

Manakkadu P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(By Adv: Prince J. Pananal)

ORDER IN MAINTAINABILITY

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Complaint in brief is that,

This complaint is based on a dispute in connection with a rent agreement. The complainant hired a room owned and occupied by the opposite party situated in ward No.VIII of Thodupuzha Municipality by executing a rent deed on 31.8.2015 in favour of the opposite party, agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- as rent per month and an amount of Rs.75000/- as security deposit. The object of the complainant was to start a wedding card shop, for his livelihood in this room. Unfortunately the CST licence was not sanctioned by the authority due to some technical reasons. Hence the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to cancel the rent agreement and for getting back the security deposit. But the opposite party was reluctant to do so. Moreover, the complainant is constrained to pay the rent each month. Eventhough there was no condition in the rent deed relating to the surrender of shop room in this period, there was an oral agreement between the parties that the

(cont...2)

- 2 -

complainant can surrender the shop room at any time by issuing two months prior notice to the opposite party. Opposite party has no right to realise the monthly rent from the complainant where the shop was not being used by him and to withheld the security deposit of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the above said act of the opposite party warranted deficiency in service and approached this Forum against this.

On notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed version by challenging the maintainability of the complaint herein as primary issue. Heard both sides.

Counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that the relationship between the complainant and opposite party is a land lord-tenant relationship instead of service provider or seller – consumer relationship. Opposite party further argued that in Kerala, there is a specific statute as the Kerala Rent Control Act in force which covers disputes in connection with lease and rental matters. The room in question is situated in Thodupuzha Municipality and the said area comes under the notified area of the Rent Control Court, Thodupuzha. So the complainant not comes under the definition of 'consumer' as per Consumer Protection Act.

We have perused the averements of the complainant in the complaint and written version and points put forwarded by the counsel for both sides and material on record. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a tenant and the complaint is based upon a rent agreement. Eventhough the relationship between the complainant and opposite party are land lord-tenant, we cannot discard the fact that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party since the opposite party receives monthly rent from the complainant and provides service to him. Moreover, the Consumer Protection Act shall be an act in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Eventhough there is specific statute relating to the disputes of land lord-tenant, the complainant is not barred from approaching the Consumer Forum to redress his grievances.

(cont....3)

- 3 -

Hence the Forum is of a considered view that the complaint is maintainable herein and the petition challenging maintainability on this ground stands dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17^th day of January, 2016

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. LIZAMMA ABRAHAM. K. (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)

Forwarded by Order,

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT