Heard the complainant appearing in person and Ms. Arushi Pathak, counsel for the opposite party.   

2.      The aforementioned complaint has been filed for (1) giving direction to the opposite party to hand over possession of the property allotted to the complainant without further delay, (2) to waive off maintenance charges till the date of offer of the said property to the complainant, (3) to pay penalty @ Rs.10 per sq. ft. per month from the date of total consideration paid by the complainant to the opposite party, (4) to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment or (5) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3.      Ms. Sirmistha Bhadana purchased unit no.601 on 25.04.2012 and unit no.602 on 24.04.2012 from the opposite party, in the project ‘Logix Technova’ at Sector-132, Noida.  The complainant purchased unit no.602 from Ms. Sirmistha Bhadana on 10.02.2015 and unit no.601 on 25.01.2018.  The opposite party duly permitted these sales and enclosed in its record. The opposite party offered possession of flat no.602 and the complainant has also given an Indemnity-cum-Undertaking in this respect on 11.03.2015 but some dispute remained in respect of the other unit as both units were conjunct.  Ultimately, dispute between the parties i.e. the complainant, Ms. Sirmistha Bhadana and the opposite party was settled through settlement deed dated 11.01.2018.  In pursuance of the settlement deed dated 11.01.2018, opposite party issued a notice of possession on 14.02.2018 but when the complainant went for taking possession then an extra demand for around Rs.1,50,000/- has been made due to increase in area.  The increase in area was protested by the complainant and he was permitted to measure the area of the office space of flat no.601.  On actual measurement, when no increase in area was found, then the opposite party sent an email dated 18.01.2018 in which the only objection has been raised that the area of column was not included in the actual measurement.  Thereafter, this complaint has been filed on 04.04.2018.  The opposite party has filed written reply on 31.07.2018 in which various technical pleas such as the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint has become time barred etc. have been raised but the material fact relating to the settlement arrived between the parties in which the opposite party had duly acknowledged the title and made a commitment for giving possession has not been disputed. 

4.      Both the parties filed their Affidavit of Evidence and the matter has been argued by them.  During the arguments, we found that when the settlement between the parties was arrived on 11.01.2018 then there is no question of limitation in the present complaint.  In view of the settlement, the opposite party has to give the possession over both the office units namely Unit Nos. 601 and 602 in the project ‘Logix Technova’ situated at Sector-132, Noida.  After issue of possession letter on 14.02.2018 again, dispute was raised in respect of increase in area.  We found that there was no increase inasmuch as in the email dated 18.01.2018, the measurement of the area has been disputed only for the exclusion of column in the area, which under law is not permitted. So far as maintenance charges are concerned, although the possession letter was issued on 14.02.2018 but it is not disputed that subsequent to possession letter, demand of increase area was made which is found as not justified. There was no valid possession letter.  In these circumstances, opposite party is not entitled to maintenance charges.

ORDER

          In the result, complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to hand over possession of unit no.601 and 602 in project ‘Logix Technova’ within a period of 30 days from the date of the judgment.