The OP filed IA u/s 100 of the C.P. Act 2019 r/w order 7 rule 11(d) sec 11 and sec 151 CPC to reject the complaint against the OP.

        The complainant has filed objections and also additional objections.

        We have heard the arguments. Perused the citations and documents relied by both the parties.

        The point that arise for our consideration is

1. Whether IA u/s 100 C.P. Act r/w order 7 rule 11(d) sec 11 and sec 151 of CPC is liable to be allowed and the complaint is liable to be rejected?
2. What order?

Our findings on the above point is in the affirmative for the following;

REASONS

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 35 of the C.P.Act 2019 alleging that he is preferring an appeal to this Commission that his BBA(the contract) with the respondent be cancelled and he be given full refund along with interest and other incidentals.

        He is also stated the grounds of appeal in the complaint. He further prays to direct the OP to refund the full money received from this petitioner i.e., Rs.42,49,462/- with interest from the time received till it is refunded to this petitioner and all other incidental charges and house rental cost i.e., the rent that was paid by this petitioner since the house possession due date of June 2016 has originally promised by the builder and further direct the OP to pay a high penalty and also to take suitable disciplinary action against this builder.

        After issue of the notice the OP appeared and they have failed to file the version within 45 days. Hence this commission has rejected the version as barred by limitation. After that the OP has filed this application for rejection of the complaint.

        It is the case of the OP that the complaint is not maintainable because the complainant has filed a similar complaint before the UP RERA in Complaint No.12201827535, the said complaint was contested by this OP and a detailed order was passed by the RERA on 12.07.2019 wherein, this OP was directed to hand over the possession of the unit after receiving the complete payment from the complainant.  The filing of this instant fresh complaint before this Commission for the same cause of action is not permissible and an abuse of the process of law.

        It is further case of the OP that the complainant is a compulsive litigant and this complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

        It is further case of the OP that the complainant had prayed for execution of the order passed by the Uttar Pradesh RERA dated 12.07.2019 u/s 63 of the RERA act 2016.  After hearing both the parties the Uttar Pradesh RERA directed the complainant on 11.01.2022 to make the balance payment and thereafter purchase the stamp paper for the execution of the conveyance deed.  The initiation of the execution proceedings by the complainant before the UP RERA shows that the complainant wanted the execution of the order passed by the UP RERA.  Thus this complaint praying for cancellation of allotment and refund of the amount with interest is not maintainable. 

        It is further contention taken by the OP that the complainant also filed an appeal before the RERA appellate tribunal at Lucknow against the order passed by Uttar Pradesh RERA and the said appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 13.05.2020 for want of prosecution, thus the order passed by the UP RERA attain finality.

        It is evident from the conduct of the complainant that he is filing multiple complaint/appeal in different cities/states to harass the OP, the instant complaint deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands.

        It is the case of the OP that the complainant had approached their company and booked one residential unit bearing No.QUIET-901 in the project Paramount Emotions situated at Plot No.GH05A Greater Noida, West Uttar Pradesh vide allotment letter dated 18.06.2013.  as per the terms of the allotment letter the possession of the unit was likely to be given in the end of June 2017 + 6 months grace period.  The greater Noida authority granted occupancy certificate on 12.02.2018 and the unit allotted to the complainant is in tower Q which has also been granted occupancy certificate.  As per the terms mentioned in the allotment letter the OP had issued letter offering the complainant for possession on 08.03.2018 and has demanded the complainant to pay the balance amount.  The complainant neither paid the balance amount nor purchased the stamp paper for execution of the conveyance deed. 

        It is undisputed fact that the complainant has filed the petition before the RERA authority, Uttar Pradesh to direct the OP to deliver the possession of the apartment and the same was allowed by the Uttar Pradesh RERA.  After that the complainant also filed Execution Petition to execute the order.  The court has also ordered for furnishing of the stamp paper and also for payment of balance amount if any to the OP.  The complainant without complying the order has filed an appeal No.253/2022 before the Uttar Pradesh RERA appellate Tribunal and the same was dismissed for non prosecution.  After that he has filed this complaint sought for recovery of Rs.42,49,462/- and also for interest and other incidental costs and also for the recovery of rent amount which he has paid since June 2016 as the due date originally promised by the builder.

        The complaint filed by the complainant alleging the he is aggrieved by the order passed by the Uttar Pradesh RERA authority is not at all maintainable before this Commission since this is a District Commission and the complainant who is well aware of the proceedings and also filed a appeal before the RERA /Tribunal Uttar Pradesh, has filed this complaint by way of appeal and it is not at all maintainable.

        In addition to this when the order passed by the Hon’ble RERA authority, Uttar Pradesh has reached finality in view of the dismissal of the appeal filed by the complainant before the Uttar Pradesh RERA Appellate Tribunal.  This complaint is also not maintainable.  The complainant would have challenged the order passed by the RERA appellate tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court of Lucknow.  The complainant being an educated person and also aware of all these proceedings has filed this complaint just to harass the OP and to waste the time of the Commission. Hence the complaint itself is not at all maintainable in view of the finality of the order passed by the RERA Uttar Pradesh. Hence we answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The IA filed by OP u/s 100 of the C.P. Act 2019 r/w order 7 rule 11(d) sec 11 and sec 151 CPC is hereby allowed.

The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby rejected.