Date of filing :7.5.2018

Judgment : Dt.21.1.2019

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.

            This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Dhakuria Daspara Bazar O Babsyasi Samitee represented by jointly with Late Dipak Mitra, Ex-President, now Sri Ashok Dutta, Tribikram Mitra, Secretary and Paran Mitra Treasurer, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (referred as OP hereinafter) namely (1) Smt. Sovana Ghosh, (2) Smt. Sefali Guha Roy, (3) Smt. Putul Pal, (4) Sri Debraj Pal, (5) Sri Debasish Pal and (6) Sri Malay Chatterjee.

            Case of the Complainant, in brief, is that one Renukabala Dasi alias Renuka Pal, predecessor-in-interest  and entrust of OP No.1 to 5 entered into a development agreement on 19.4.2004 with the OP No.6 for construction of a multi storied building on the land measuring 6 cottahs 15 chittacks and  42 sq.ft. at premises No.93, R. N. Das Road, Dhakuria, P.S.-Garfa.

            According to the terms and conditions some flats and shop rooms in the building to be constructed were allotted to OP No.6 the developer. Thus Complainant entered into an agreement with the OP No.6 on 05.11.2006 to purchase one office room described in the schedule of the agreement at a total consideration price of Rs.5,62,500/- which has been fully paid by the Complainant. But OP No.6 instead of going for registration of the deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainant had put the Complainant to the possession of the shop room by issuing one possession letter dt.01.08.2008. In spite of sending notices to the OPs including the OP No.1 to 5 who are legal heirs of the said owner Renuka Bala Dasi registration of the deed has not been done. Said Renuka Pal died intestate in the year 2009. So, the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant praying to direct the OP to execute and register the deed of conveyance and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

            Complainant has annexed with the complaint petition property tax receipt, letter of possession, CESC bill, money receipts and agreement for sale.

            On perusal of the record, it appears that in spite of sending the notices no step has been taken by the OPs and thus the case proceeded ex-parte against the OPs.

            So, the point requires determination : Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.

            Decision with reasons

            At the very outset it may be pertinent to point out that Complainant has filed the agreement wherefrom it appears that the present Complainant being represented by its Committee Members viz Dipak Mitra, President, Secretary Nabakumar Das and treasurer of the said Committee entered into an agreement with OP No.6  on 5.11.2016 to purchase an office room measuring an area of 250 sq.ft. of super built up area a little more or less for a total consideration of R.5,62,500/-. The said office room has been described in the agreement in the 2^nd schedule. Admittedly, OP No.6 executed the said Agreement for Sale, being developer and the constituted attorney Late Renuka Bala Dasi alias Renuka Bala Pal who was the owner of the property described in the schedule A of the Agreement. Said Renuka Bala Dasi died on 3.8.2008. The document filed in this case which also include possession letter indicates that possession was delivered to Secretary, Dhakuria Bazar Byabasayi Samiti on 1.1.2008. Said photocopy of the possession letter which was annexed with the complaint petition bears the  date of handing over possession on 1.8.2008.

            But, it is strange  that the original document produced before this Forum contains the possession letter which is dated 31.12.2007. It is not cler as to how two different  possession letters have been given by the OP No.6 to the Complainant. However, possession of the Complainant in respect of the office room as described in the schedule of the complaint petition is not disputed and denied as no contrary evidence is forthcoming. OP No.1 to 5 are the legal heirs of the said Renuka Bala Dasi alias Renuka Bala Pal and it appears that notice has also been sent to them by the Complainant for registration of the deed of conveyance in respect of the office but the same has not been complied by them. The notice was also sent to OP No.6 but, admittedly due to the death of the original owner, power of attorney  in his favour has already been terminated. So, OP No.1 to 5 are liable to execute the deed in respect of the office room as agreed, in favour of the Complainant.

            This point is answered accordingly.

            Hence

                                       ordered

            CC/235/2018 is allowed ex-parte against OPs. OPs are hereby directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the schedule office room in the name of the Complainant within three months from the date of this order.