Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.             Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition are as under:

                The respondent herein is the complainant before the District Forum. A complaint under section 12 of the Act is filed by him alleging therein that he had purchased a flat no. A-36, Retreat Apartments, Plot No.20, I.P. Extension, Delhi-110092 in appellant's society on free hold basis from Mrs. Poonam Kudesiya in May 2004. Husband of Smt. Poonam  Kudesiya i.e. Sh. Mohan Kudesiya was the original allottee of the said flat who had expired on 05.01.2000. After his death his wife Smt. Poonam Kudesiya got mutated the flat said in her name after clearance of the all the dues relating to maintenance and repayment of DCHFC loan in full and final. It is alleged that Smt. Poonam Kudesiya had obtained NOC from the management committee of the appellant society on 17.08.2001. It is alleged that the facts of clearance of DCHFC loan was also corroborated by the DCHFC vide its letter dated 04.03.2004 addressed to DDA and copy to the Secretary of appellant society and to Mrs. Poonem Kudesiya wherein DCHFC had certified that the member had repaid the full loan amount sanctioned and disbursed to him through the society. The DCHFC had also given NOC for conversion of the above flat from lease hold to free hold which was conveyed to the DDA as well as to the appellant society and to Mrs. Poonam Kudesiya and thereafter only Mrs. Poonam Kudesiya had executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent. It is alleged that despite the above position, the respondent was shocked to receive a demand notice on 02.02.2008 from the appellant society for payment of Rs. 7,32,035/- towards outstanding loan of DCHFC. It is alleged that all the dues were settled by Smt. Poonem Kudesiya wife of the original allottee before sale of the flat to the respondent. The respondent visited the office of appellant and discussed the matter and was assured that she would not face any problem in future. Despite assurances given, again demands of different amounts were raised in 2009, August 2011 and in 2012. The respondent had alleged that the respondent/OP society was causing harassment to him by issuing demand notices as such approached the District Forum for withdrawal of demand notice and awarding compensation and litigation expenses to him.

11.            We have heard Counsel for the parties.

12.            The matter is in mid stream before the Ld. District Forum.  The issue of maintainability of the complaint is yet to be decided.  The District Forum has only ordered the appellant to file written statement so that the full facts are brought on record and a final view on the maintainability could be taken thereafter.  The issue of maintainability is left open to be considered at appropriate stage.  The aforesaid directions have been given keeping in view the material on record given by the complainant/respondent in support of the complaint case.  As per stand of the respondent, the original allottee had paid all the dues relating to the maintenance and DCHFC loan.  The respondent has placed reliance on NOC given by the management committee of the appellant on 17.8.01.    As per stand of the respondent/complainant, factum of clearance of loan of DCHFC was certified by DCHFC letter dated 4.3.04 addressed to DDA with a copy of Secretary of Respondent society and to Mrs. Kudiya, Wife of original allottee wherein it is alleged that the member had repaid the loan.  It is alleged that appellant was also given NOC by DCHFC for conversion of flat in question from lease hold to free hold which was also conveyed to DDA and thereafter the previous owner had executed sale deed in favour of the respondent/complainant.  The stand of the respondent is that the appellant society is harassing her by raising the alleged demands.  Prima facie the respondent/complainant has put material on record to substantiate his stand.

13.            Appellant did not file written statement rather moved aforesaid application whereby issue of non-maintainability of complaint is raised.  As per respondent, he had not taken any loan from DCHFC.  It is the original allottee who had taken the loan and after clearance of loan, the flat was sold to him by a registered sale deed.  The respondent has placed on record various documents as are discussed above.  After taking the relevant material on record, the District Forum prima facie found merit in the contention of the respondent that it was not a case of payment of dues of a member of society and has directed the appellant/OP to file written statement so that the view on the maintainability of complaint could be taken thereafter.  The impugned order is passed after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.  In these circumstances, there is no error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the impugned order which calls for interference of this Commission.