Calcutta High Court
Merlin Tf Lake View & Ors vs Ruchir Jain & Ors on 26 August, 2015
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
APOT No. 382 of 2015
GA No. 2718 of 2015
With
CS No. 424 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
MERLIN TF LAKE VIEW & ORS.
Versus
RUCHIR JAIN & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR
The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Date : 26th August, 2015.
For Appellants : Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate
Mr. Satadip Bhattacharya, Advocate
For Plaintiff/Respondent: Mr. S.N. Mitra, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arindam Mukherjee, Advocate Ms. Sananda Mukhopadhyay, Advocate Mr. Navneet Mishra, Advocate For Respondent Nos.4-14: Mr. Tapash G. Chowdhury, Advocate Mr. Indranil Chatterjee, Advocate and Mr. Bidyut Dutta, Advocate The Court : By one of the owners of the flat the present suit was initiated where the main complaint was for non-maintenance of the flats constructed by the developer and handed over to the respective owners after conveying the same to the respective owners. According to the developer/appellant, there were several problems among the apartment owners with regard to formation of apartment 2 owners Association for the welfare of the apartment owners. Therefore, in spite of submission of an application for registration of the apartment owners association, the registration could not be proceeded with till date. In the absence of such Association being formed, naturally there were resultant difficulties to the people who live there in the apartments either as owners or as tenants. In that situation the plaintiff seems to have approached the Court.
Learned Judge no doubt took care of the interest of the apartment owners by appointing a Special Officer to look after the maintenance of the apartments but, however, his observation that if there was any shortfall with reference to the fund for the maintenance of apartments had to be compensated or replaced by the developer, that is, the appellant, is, according to us, too harsh. Once the apartments are constructed and registration is completed, we fail to understand how the maintenance charges could be borne by the developer. It has to be borne by the respective owners of apartments or the tenants depending upon the agreement between the owner of the flat and the tenant who occupies a particular flat. If there is any shortfall, in that event the Special Officer has to take appropriate steps to collect the said money from the flat owners who are refusing or reluctant to pay at the rate of Rs.2 per sq.ft. towards the maintenance charges. However, the direction that the developer shall make good the shortfall of the fund is set aside and all other terms and conditions of the order would remain. We also notice that the shortcomings of the construction or the alleged deficit in service on the part of the developer is a matter pending before the 3 Consumer Forum and none of the observations in this order would come in the way of the proceeding pending before the Consumer Forum.
In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to keep the appeal pending. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. The application is also disposed of.
(MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ.) (JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.) SN.
AR(CR)