Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan And Aleya ... vs Dlf Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known ... on 24 August, 2020
However, it is admitted that this offer of possession was without valid OC. It is also admitted that this possession was without execution of the sale deed/sub lease deed. Hence, there is default on the part of the OP to deliver a valid possession in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease deed. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 16 SCC 512 that, "failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within the contractually stipulated period, amount to deficiency".
Kavit Ahuja vs Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate ... on 12 February, 2015
9. The contention of OPs that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction is not valid. Under Section 21 of the Act, Commission has the jurisdiction where value of goods and services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs.one crore. The objection that the Complaint is barred by limitation is also not accepted. The OP(s) have failed to deliver the possession of the unit to the complainant till date and therefore, the cause of action is continuing. The contention that complainant(s) is/are not a consumer as he/they has purchased the unit for investment purpose is also rejected as no such evidence has been adduced by the OP(s) in this regard. It has been observed by this Commission in various cases (Kavita Ahuja Vs Shipra Estates Ltd, CC 137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, Santosh Johri Vs M/s Unitech Ltd, CC 429 of 2014 and connected Cases, decided on 08.06.2015, Aloke Anand Vs M/s Ireo Grace Pvt Ltd & Others, CC no 1277 of 2017 decided on 01.11.2021) that purchase of a house can only be for a commercial purpose if the purchaser is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses or plots on a regular basis, solely with a view to make profit by way of sale of such houses, if the house is purchased purely as an investment and the purchaser is not undertaking the trading of houses on regular basis, then it would be difficult to say that he had purchased it for commercial purpose. ......... In any case, it is not appropriate to classify such acquisition as a commercial activity merely on the basis of number of houses purchased by a person unless it is shown that he was engaged in the business of selling and purchasing the houses on a regular basis. The reasons for delay in construction adduced by the OP are not found convincing.
1