National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Delhi Development Authority vs Mr. Vijay Kumar Jasra on 15 January, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4718 OF 2013 (From the order dated 03.09.2013 in Appeal No. 631/2009 of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi. ... Petitioner/Opposite Party Versus Mr. Vijay Kumar Jasra r/o SU187, Pitam Pura, Delhi Respondents/Complainant REVISION PETITION NO. 4719 OF 2013 (From the order dated 03.09.2013 in Appeal No. 632/2009 of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi. ... Petitioner/Opposite Party Versus Mr. Satish Kumar Jasra r/o SU187, Pitam Pura, Delhi Respondents/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner Mrs. Girija Wadhwa, Advocate For the Respondents Shri Dilip Singh, Advocate Shri Govind Lal Sharma, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 15th JANUARY 2015 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER These revision petitions have arisen out of common order, hence decided by common order.
2. These revision petitions have been filed by petitioner against order dated 03.09.2013 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 631/2009, Delhi Development Authority versus Vijay Kumar Jasra and First Appeal No. 631/2009, Delhi Development Authority versus Satish Kumar Jasra by which appeals were partly allowed and order of District Forum was partly modified.
3. Brief facts of the complaint case 151/2008 in appeal No. 631/2009 are that shop No. 3 was allotted by opposite party / petitioner on 27.01.1984 in favour of Lajpat Rai on whose demise shop came to complainant / respondent as legal heir of deceased Lajpat Rai.
Complainant applied to the opposite party on 24.11.2005 for getting the shop converted from leasehold to freehold and deposited ₹22,794/- as ground rent besides conversion charges and the penalty. Opposite party did not pass order within 90 days and asked complainant to deposit ₹5,52,000/- on account of misuse charges without disclosing the basis for levying those charges though there was no misuse of shop by the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum.
4. In complaint case No. 152/2008 in appeal No. 632/2009, complainant acquired shop No. 2 from original allottee Charan Singh and others by agreement to sell and conveyance deed was executed. Complainant submitted application on 17.11.2005 to the opposite party for conversion of shop from leasehold to freehold on 24.11.2005. The Opposite Party did not convert shop in freehold within 90 days and OP demanded a sum of ₹28,908/- on account of ground rent, maintenance charges etc. which were also paid by complainant on 09.10.2006.
Even then conversion has not been made.
Alleging deficiency in service complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted the complaints and submitted that conversion of premises from leasehold to freehold does not amount to hiring services and complainant does not fall within meaning of consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was also submitted that site was inspected by Assistant Engineer, who found that both shops, in question, were amalgamated with each other and on the back land of the shops, there was unauthorized construction by encroachment on Government land and a room had been constructed for which notice dated 24.11.2005 was issued to complainants for removal of unauthorized construction. Complainants intimated to the opposite party that they have removed unauthorized construction and a civil suit pending in this regard has also been withdrawn but complainants factually did not remove unauthorized construction, therefore, conversion could not be processed and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed both complaints and directed opposite party to convert shops from leasehold to freehold and pay compensation of ₹20,000/- to each of the complainants and in complaint no. 151/2008, demand of ₹5,52,000/- was also quashed. Appeals filed by opposite party were partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and cost of ₹20,000/- was set aside and it was further directed that shops will be converted subject to complainants obtaining permission of amalgamation of shop no. 2 & 3 in pursuance of circular dated 06.05.2008, against which these revision petitions have been filed.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties finally at admission stage and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as complainants already amalgamated shops and put unauthorised construction, opposite party rightly raised demand for conversion from leasehold to freehold even then learned District Forum committed error in quashing demand and allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal to this extent hence revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law and respondents do not want to amalgamate shops, hence revision petitions be dismissed.
8. As far amalgamation of shops is concerned, learned counsel for respondents submitted that they do not want to amalgamate shops and door between shops has already been closed. In such circumstances, argument of learned counsel for petitioner that shops are not in ownership of one person has become infructuous and I need not to decide whether amalgamation in the present circumstances was permissible or not.
9. As far quashing of demand is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of clause 10 of scheme of conversion from leasehold system to freehold system, complainants were bound to pay misuse charges and to remove encroachment for converting shops from leasehold to freehold.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that demand itself was illegal as held by Delhi High Court in 2007 VIII AD (DELHI) 359 WP(C) No. 11131/2005 decided on 11.05.2007 Engineering & Industrial Corp. (M/s) Vs. Union of India & others, which was also placed before learned State Commission. Learned State Commission in the light of aforesaid judgment rightly quashed demand of ₹5,52,000/- in complaint no. 151/2008 and I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
10. As far unauthorised constructions on the Government land in back of aforesaid shops is concerned, learned counsel for respondents submitted that there is no encroachment at present whereas learned counsel for petitioner submitted that still there is encroachment. It can be observed that if on inspection it is found that there is encroachment on Government land, petitioner will be free to levy charges pertaining to encroachment as per law and recover from the respondents and will be free to remove the encroachment but if there is no encroachment, petitioner is bound to convert shops from leasehold to freehold as observed by fora below.
11. Consequently, the revision petitions filed by the petitioner are dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER RS/