M/S. M.S. Construction vs Iqbal Ahmed & Anr. on 29 August, 2024
(iii) Ghaziabad Development Authority v Vishnu Dutt Dimri cited in 2002(1) CPR 151 (NC) (iv) Lastly Fora cannot adjudicate on issue of liability to pay escalation charges as held in Yash Bir Jaggi v Unitech Ltd reported in IV (2006) CPJ 123; 2007 NCJ 160 (NC).It is further contended by Respondent-1 in respect of payment of non-payment of advance money in terms of agreement that respondent no. 1/ complainant paid Rs.52 Lac to the appellant/ developer in the year 2016 where this appellant adjusted Rs.30 Lac towards the commercial space before completion of project work. In spite of having Rs.22 Lac on account, the appellant/ developer did not complete the construction work of the subject flats. There was a genuine doubt upon the developer/ appellant that whether he would able to complete the construction work of the subject flats within the stipulated period. This respondent no. 1/ complainant requested the appellant that he will pay entire consideration money on the date of delivery of possession and registration of deed of conveyance with Completion Certificate but the appellant failed to do so. For the sake of argument, the respondent no. 1/ complainant submitted that there is no clause for cancellation of agreement and the developer did not cancel the agreement till date and therefore there is no question of default on payment in advance money arise where the construction of subject flats are still incomplete till date. No completion certificate has been supplied by the appellant to the respondent no. 1. The appellant did not send any notice in this regard also. Respondent-1 further contended in respect of investment allegationthatrespondent no. 1/ complainant belongs to Islam religion and it is his tradition of his family to stay together and therefore he has booked three flats for his big family which the respondent no. 1 has already stated in the complaint as well as in the first paragraph of the written submission. Moreover, those three flats are residential flats and there is no scope for utilizing/ exploiting the same commercially. The respondent no. 1/ complainant has separately purchased one commercial space for his livelihood from this appellant/ developer. The allegation of investor is baseless.