Leave and License Agreement - Narayan Halder - Shruti Choudhury

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT

 

 

THIS AGREEMENT is made at Garia, Kolkata  this  1^st day of  February, 2023, between SRI NARAYAN HALDER, Son of Late Sanatan Halder, (AADHAR : 3025 4704 0410) (PAN : ABFPH8805G), residing at Premises being no. R-88, Kamdahari, Purba Para, Kolkata - 700084, District – South 24-Parganas, (which terms or expressions shall unless excluded by or repugnant to the subject or context, be deemed to mean and include his heirs, executors, administrators, successors, legal representatives and assigns), hereinafter referred to as 'the Licensor' of the One Part.

 

 

 

And

 

SHRUTI CHOUDHARY, Wife of Randhir Choudhury, (AADHAR : 2698 7560 9651), residing at PUSHPA VILLA, Elachi Chakraborty Para, Gotberia Lions Club, Narendrapur, Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality, Kolkata - 700103, District South 24 Parganas, (which terms or expressions shall unless excluded by or repugnant to the subject or context, be deemed to mean and include her heirs, executors, administrators, successors, legal representatives and assigns), hereinafter referred to as the 'Licensee' of the Other Part, as follows;

 

WHEREAS the Licensor is the owner of a Shop room No. 4 at Ground floor, measuring about 140 (One Hundred Forty) Sq. ft. more or less, lying and situated at Mouza Barhansh Fartabad, J.L. no. 47, Touzi no. 109, R. S. Khatian no. 1241, R.S. Dag no. 15/1710, comprising Land measuring about 3 Satak, R.S. Dag no. 15/1712, comprising Land measuring about 3 Satak, R.S. Dag no. 15/1937, comprising Land measuring about 1 Satak, R.S. Dag no. 15/1711, comprising Land measuring about 3 Satak, total land measuring about 10 Satak, having Holding no. 375, Garia Road, Ward no. 29, under Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality, Police Station Narendrapur, Kolkata – 700084, District South 24 Parganas, including electric connection thereon situated on the ground floor on the premises morefully described in the schedule written hereunder.

 

 

AND WHEREAS the Licensee has approached the licensor with a request to allow the Licensee to temporarily occupy and use a portion of the Ground floor of the said building, admeasuring about  140 (One Hundred Forty) Sq. ft. more or less,  for carrying Cloths and apparel business, on leave and license basis until the Licensee gets other more suitable accommodation.

 

AND WHEREAS the Licensor has agreed to grant leave and license to the Licensee to occupy and use the said ground floor portion of the said building and which portion is morefully described hereunder on the following terms and conditions agreed to between the parties hereto;

 

NOW IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS..

 

1.           The Licensor hereby grants leave and license to the Licensee to occupy and use the said portion of the ground floor / 140 (One Hundred Forty) Sq. ft. more or less, of the said premises of the Licensor (hereinafter referred to as the Licensed Premises) for a period of 36 (thirty six) months from 1^st day of March’ 2023 to 28^th day of February’ 2026, and will finally terminate and ceased to continue on expiry of 36 (thirty six) months ( i.e. 28^th day of February’ 2026 ), and the Licensee undertake to surrender and handover the physical peaceful vacant possession of the Licensed premises to the Licensor. The Licensee agrees to vacate the said premises even earlier if the Licensee secures any other accommodation in the locality where the said premises are situated.

 

2.           This writing shall never be construed as tenancy agreement or lease nor otherwise creating any other interest in the property in favour of the occupiers which is not at all the intention of the parties but on the contrary merely a temporary arrangement, to allow the occupiers to use portion of the premises for their office accommodation under the control and supervision of the owners for which purpose the owners shall retain rooms , the owner shall have his / their own staff for the care and supervision and maintenance of and services to the property.

 

3.           The Licensee shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- ( Rupees Two Lakhs ) only, as Security Deposit to the Licensor at the execution of this present. The said deposit is refundable, without any interest thereon at the occasion of leaving the premises by the Licensee. At the time of leaving the premises, the Licensor inspect his property being portion of schedule as morefully enumerated below, and if he find any damage in the property the same may be accommodated with the said Security deposit and after such accommodation of the damage charges appropriately assessed by the Architecture, the remaining being balance therefore should return to the Licensee.

 

4.           The Licensee shall pay to the Licensor a License fee or compensation including cost of maintenance of Licensed premises, to be paid in advance for each month on or before the 10^th  day of each English calendar current month. The License fees must be paid in Cash and without any statutory deduction, if any. The License Fees or Compensation will be payable by the Licensee to the Licensor, in the followings;

 

Sl. No.	Period for Payment of License Fees	License Fees/ Compensation
1	01/03/2023 To 28/02/2026	Rs. 9,000/-

 

Thus a sum of Rs. 9,000/- ( Rupees Nine Thousand ) only, being License fee or compensation including cost of maintenance of Licensed premises, to be paid in advance for each month on or before the 10^th  day of each English calendar current month.

 

5.           All the Municipal taxes and other taxes and levies in respect of the licensed premises will be paid by the Licensor alone.

 

6.           The electric charges and water charges for electric and water consumption in the said licensed premises will be paid by the Licensee to the authorities concerned and the Licensor will not be responsible for the same. For the sake of convenience a separate electric and water meter if possible will be provided in the said premises.

 

7.           The licensed premises will be used only for carrying Cloths and apparel business, and for no other purpose.

 

8.           The Licensee shall take all, the endeavour to have safety and security of the Licensed premises, by fixing and arranging the Fire Extinguisher, and other instruments, etc.

 

9.           The licensed premises have normal electricity fittings and fixtures. If the Licensee desires to have any additional fittings and fixtures, the Licensee may do so at his own cost and in compliance with the rules. The Licensee shall remove such fittings and fixtures on the termination of the license failing which they shall be deemed to be the property of the Licensor.

 

10.        The licensed premises are given to the Licensee only and the Licensee will not be entitled to transfer the benefit of this agreement to anybody else or will not be entitled to allow anybody else to occupy the premises or any part thereof. Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed to grant a lease and the licensee agrees and undertakes that no such contention shall be taken up by the Licensee at any time.

 

11.        The Licensee shall not be deemed to be in the exclusive occupation of the licensed premises and the Licensor will have the right to enter upon the premises at any time during working hours to inspect the premises.

 

12.        The Licensee shall maintain the licensed premises in good condition and will not cause any damage thereto. If any damage is caused to the premises or any part thereof by the Licensee or his employees, servants or agents the same will be made good by the Licensee at the cost of the Licensee either by rectifying the damage or by paying cash compensation as may be determined by the Licensor's Architect.

 

13.        The Licensee shall not carry out any work of structural repairs or additions or alterations to the said premises. Only such alterations or additions as are not of structural type or of permanent nature may be allowed to be made by the Licensee inside the premises with the previous permission of the Licensor.

 

14.        The Licensee shall not cause any nuisance or annoyance to the people-in the neighbourhood or store any hazardous goods on the premises.

 

15.        If the Licensee commits a breach of any term of this agreement then notwithstanding anything herein contained the Licensor will be entitled to terminate this agreement by fifteen days' prior notice to the Licensee. 

 

16.        On the expiration of the said term or period of the License or earlier termination thereof, the Licensee shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the Licensed premises to the Licensor In the same condition In which the premises now exist subject to normal wear and tear. The Licensee's occupation of the premises after such termination will be deemed to be that of a trespasser.

 

 

SCHEDULE ABOVE REFERRED TO :

{ Licensed Portion }

All that piece and parcel of Shop Room No. 4 measuring about 140 (One Hundred Forty) Sq. ft. more or less, lying and situated at Mouza Barhansh Fartabad, J.L. no. 47, Touzi no. 109, R. S. Khatian no. 1241, R.S. Dag no. 15/1710, comprising Land measuring about 3 Satak, R.S. Dag no. 15/1712, comprising Land measuring about 3 Satak, R.S. Dag no. 15/1937, comprising Land measuring about 1 Satak, R.S. Dag no. 15/1711, comprising Land measuring about 3 Satak, total land measuring about 10 Satak, having Holding no. 375, Garia Road, Ward no. 29, under Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality, Police Station Narendrapur, Kolkata – 700084, District South 24 Parganas, West Bengal.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have put their hands the day and year first hereinabove written.

 

Signed by the within named Licensor

 

Signed by the within named Licensee

Witnesses :

1 :

 

2 :

Drafted and Prepared in my Chamber,

 

 

Ashok Kumar Singh. Advocate.

High Court Bar Association Room No. 15.

High Court at Calcutta.

Mobile Number : 9883070666 / 9836829666.

E-mail : aksinghadvocate@rediffmail.com

THIS LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT MADE ON THIS THE 1^st DAY OF FEBRUARY’ 2023, AT KOLKATA.

 

 

 

 

 

BETWEEN

 

 

SRI NARAYAN HALDER

                             _________LICENSOR.

 

A N D

 

 

SHRUTI CHOUDHARY

 

                   __________LICENSEE.

 

 

 

 

 

LEAVE AND LICENSE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drafted & Prepared by :

 

Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate, High Court Bar Association Room No. 15, High Court at Calcutta. Mobile No. 9883070666 / 9836829666, E-mail : aksinghadvocate@rediffmail.com

Brief notes of Argument / Consumer Case / Gopal Chandra Saha / Sukumar Das / District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata Unit - II

 

Before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata Unit – II, at 7th floor, 8, Lindsay St, Fire Brigade Head Quarter, New Market Area, Dharmatala, Taltala, Kolkata, West Bengal 700087.

 

                                      Consumer Complaint no. CC/226/2020

 

                                                         In the matter of :

Shri Gopal Chandra Saha,                                        _________Complainant

-       Versus –

 

Shri Sukumar Das, and Another,                               ________Respondents

 

 

BRIEF NOTES OF ARGUMENT

ON BEHALF OF

THE COMPLAINANT

 

FACTS :

 

 

1. The Respondent no.1, is a Developer and the Respondent no.2, is a Land Owner, they entered into a Development agreement Dated 11^th day of March’ 2005, in respect of a property being ALL THAT piece and parcel of land measuring 2 (two) Kotthas 10 (ten) Chittacks more or less lying or situated at and being municipal premises no. 75/1, Tiljala Road, Kolkata – 700 039, Police Station – Tiljala, within the municipal limits of ward no. 65 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, comprised in Dag nos. 46, 47, and 48 appertaining to khatian nos. 30 and 95 in Mouza – Tiljala, J.L. no. 15, R.S. no. H.G.D. 5,6, Collectorate Touzi no. 1298/2833, Police Station – Tiljala, and the said property butted and bounded as on North : 75/2, Tiljala Road, On South : 12’/10’ wide KMC Road, on East : by 4’ wide road, on west : 74/A, Tiljala Road.

 

2. That the Complainant was a Tenant in the said Scheduled Property, and an Agreement for Development made on the 11^th day of March’ 2005, by and between Shri Mihir Kumar Dutta, Son of Late Lal Mohan Dutta, residing at premises beinbg no. 75/1, Tiljala Road, Kolkasta – 700039, wherein said Mihir Kumar Dutta described as the owner of the one part and said Sri Sukumar Das described therein as the Developer of the other part and whereby  the said owner engaged and entered the said Developer herein to develop, raise and / or construct a multi storied brick built housing complex including completion thereof with all fixtures and fittings on various terms and conditions together with sharing of the built up areas in the proposed building to be constructed by the said developer fully and entirely at the cost and expenses of his own and that the said developer shall be entitled to get 55% (fifty five) per cent of the built up areas together with all easement rights, passage, all common facilities and benefit plus proportionate land in the said premises no. 75/1, Tiljala Road, Police Station – Tiljala, Kolkata – 700039, and that the said developer being entrusted with full power and exclusive discretion to sell his portion of the super built up ( Builtup +10% ) areas in the building as per the allocation and entitlements as granted, assured, earmarked, acceded to and accepted and agreed by both the owner and the developer therein.

 

3. The Developer has started construction of the building in the said premises in compliance of the set of terms and conditions laid down in the said development agreement, and as also the developer has almost completed construction of the said proposed building, and at such stage in the year 2005, the Developer expressed his intention to sell out according to the terms of the said development agreement, the allotted portion of the developer’s area in the said new building and that the tenant / Purchaser hereto have inspected the building premises and the flat on the new building as also thoroughly scrutinizing all the title deeds and other documents in relation to the said premises and building being constructed thereon the tenant / purchaser being fully satisfied with the same, agreed to acquire on the basis of perpetual tenancy / purchase on terms and conditions as specified in the Agreement dated 9^th day of October’ 2005, for Sale of One Flat from Developer’s allocation having measurement of 1200 Sq. feet ( more or less ) consisting of Two flats, four bed rooms, two kitchens, two toilets, at the top floor, in the premises no. 75/1, Tiljala Road, Police Station – Tiljala, Kolkata – 700039, against the consideration money as of Rs. 6,84,000/- ( rupees Six Lakhs and Eighty Four Thousand ) only.

 

10. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- ( Rupees Six Lakhs ) only, though the developer refused to take any money from the complainant on several plea and context showing the disputes with the respondent no.2, herein being the Land Owner, and assured that very shortly things will be resolved and then the developer will take rest of money and handed over the physical possession of the said two flats to the complainant herein.

 

11. The developer through his letter dated 02-09-2013, shows his willing to refund the money in the circumstances of pendency of civil suit and other legal proceeding in between the developer and the land owners, however the developer never return a single rupee to your petitioner, till date.

 

12. The Complainant solely seeks to get Flats in terms of the Agreement dated 9^th day of October’ 2005, by way of delivery of physical possession and execution and registration of deed of conveyance in respect of such flats.

 

13. The acts and deeds as aforesaid describe herein in the preceding paragraph are well established the cause of deficiency in services on the part of the respondents, as well as unfaire trade practices, as meant for in the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019.

 

14. The Complainant further seeks to get Compensation assessed as of Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rupees Three Lakhs ) only, from the Respondents for the mental agony, & harassments, etc.

 

15. The Cause of action arose as on 9^th day of October’ 2005, while entered into an agreement with the Developer for purchase of Flats against Consideration and making payments thereof to the developer, and subsequently on each day of payment as was made to the developer, and thereafter on 02-09-2013, while the developer sent a letter for refund of money taken by him though nothing has ever been refunded by the developer, therefore the cause of action continues day by day and still continues thereof, thus the Cause of Actions continuing in nature for the performances of the agreement dated 9^th day of October’ 2005.

 

16.  The followings are the documents relied on by the Complainant;

(a) Agreement Dated 9^th day of October’ 2005;

(b) Development Agreement dated 11^th day of March’ 2005;

(c ) Letter dated 02-09-2013;

 

PROCEEDING;

 

a)    Consumer Petition admitted and notice on the respondents directed by the Hon’ble District Commission;

b)   Notice was not duly served as the respondents moved from the given address;

c)    Paper publication has been directed on the Respondents;

d)   Notice has been duly Published in Bengali Daily News Paper;

e)    Since the Respondent chosen not to appear in the present Consumer Proceeding even after Paper Publication, the Hon’ble District Commission directed consumer proceeding exparte against the respondents;

f)     Thus the present consumer proceeding is at the stage of exparte against the respondents;

 

SUBMISSIONS;

 

The Complainant is a purchaser and an old aged Senior Citizen. The Complainant paid a substantial sum of money as of Rs. 6,00,000/- ( Rupees Six Lakhs ) only, to the Developer, therefore a sum of Rs. 84,000/- ( Rupees Eighty Four Thousand ) only, is remaining to pay towards the balance consideration money for the Two Flats in terms of the Agreement for Sale dated 9^th day of October’ 2005, which the Developer refused to take showing the cause of several disputes and differences with the Land Owner, and subsequently gave a letter to the complainant stating inter alia saying about the refund of money to the complainant though did not refund any money to the complainant. The complainant solely seeks to get his two flats as well as the compensation for harassment and mental agony, etc.

 

CONCLUSION;

 

In the given facts and circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get relief/s as prayed for in his petition of consumer complaint as well as in his evidence on affidavit.

 

 

Through _____________

 

 

Advocate

Date : 19-07-2022

Place : Kolkata

 

Brief notes of argument in Revision Petition / Consumer Case / M/s. Madhabi Service Station / Indian Oil Corporation / State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal

 

Before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal

11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata – 700087

Under the Consumer Protection Act 2019

 

Revision Petition No. 3 of 2021

(against the order dated 24^th December’ 2020, in Complaint Number CC/48/2018, of the District Commission, South 24 Parganas)

 

In the matter of ;

Sr Abhijit Ghosh,

                   ________Revisionist

-      Versus –

M/s. Madhabi Service Station, and Others,

                   ________Respondents

 

Brief Notes of Argument on behalf of the Respondent nos. 4 & 4(a) being M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

 

The present Revisional application by the Revisionist who is Complainant in Consumer Complaint before the Learned District Commission, is misconceived which resulting in abuse of due process of law;

 

This Respondent appeared in the Consumer complaint upon receipt of the notices served by the Learned District Commission and submitted the Written Version, therein;

 

The notice on the respondents has given by the Learned District Commission, in pursuance of compliance of Order dated 22/10/2019, passed in First Appeal No. A/10/2019, by the Hon’ble State Commission, wherein it has been contended as “it was imperative to add this bank as a party to the case. Similarly, the versions of UBI, SBI, and Indian Oil in this matter too were of great significance.”

 

The present revision has been preferred by the Complainant challenging the Order no. 14, dated 24/12/2020, passed by the Learned District Commission, South 24 Parganas, in which the Learned District Commission was pleased to allow the amendment of certain relevant facts in written version of the respondent no.1, herein on payment of cost.

 

The amendment in written version of the respondent no.1, has allowed justifiable in the interest of administration of justice on payment of cost, so far. The pleading can be amend at any stage of the proceeding for the fair adjudication on necessary facts, so far.

 

In J. Samuel and Ors. V. Gattu Mahesh and Ors. 2012 AIR SCW 1035, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-

"The primary aim of the court is to try the case on its merits and ensure that the rule of justice prevails. For this the need is for the true facts of the case to be placed before the court so that the court has access to all the relevant information in coming to its decision. Therefore, at times it is required to permit parties to amend their plaints. The Court's discretion to grant permission for a party to amend his pleading lies on two conditions, firstly, no injustice must be done to the other side and secondly, the amendment must be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However, to balance the interests of the parties in pursuit of doing justice, the proviso has been added which clearly states that application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."

 

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow both party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

 

In Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another – AIR 2009 SC 1433, Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the legisltative intent behind bringing the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC. At para 7 of the said judgment it was opined that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC are in mandatory form. The court’s jurisdiction to allow an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied i.e., the court must come to a conculsuion that inspite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Thus, the proviso indicates that once the trial commences, no amendment.

 

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami and Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Ors.( AIR 2006 SC 1663) has held that : A prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable. In the case of amendment of a written statement, the Courts are more liberal in allowing an amendment than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter case.

 

 

 

Photostat copy of the said Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court is enclosing herewith and marked as Annexure – “A”.

 

 

The present revision is questioning on allowing the amendment of written version of the respondent no.1, while the trial has not yet been commenced, is not sustainable to intervene into in the light of the decisions of the Hopn’ble Apex Court, as discussed above.

 

Therefore the present revision application should be dismissed with appropriate cost on the revisionist, who cause unnecessary delay in deciding the consumer matter before the Learned District Commission.

 

 

 

Through ___________

 

 

 

Advocate

For the Respondent no. 4 & 4(a);

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Date : 1^st day of August’ 2022;

Place : Kolkata

Brief notes of Argument - Consumer Case - Himanshu Sekhar Das - Soumen Chakraborty

 

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLKATA UNIT-III

Tramline Building ( 1^st Floor )

18, Judges Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata - 700027

 

 

 

Consumer Case no. CC/298/2018

 

 

In the matter of:

Himandshu Sekhar Das, & Anr,

 

....Complainants

 

      -versus-

 

Soumen Chakraborty,

           ... Opposite Party

 

 

Brief notes of Argument by the Opposite Party

 

 

Facts ;

 

1. One Himangshu Sekhar Das, is a Central Government Employee, who approached this opposite party for investment of his money and therefore in such terms, an agreement for sale has been entered between the said Himangshu Sekhar Das and this Opposite Party, on 14^th day of October’ 2014.

 

2. The said Agreement for sale dated 14-10-2014, has been entered between the said Himangshu Sekhar Das, and Tapas Das, as a Purchasers, and Shri Mantulal Chaskraborty, as a Land Owner, and this opposite party, in respect of a Flat at 2^nd Floor, at premises being no. 12/12, Ishan Guha Road, Police Station – Haridevpur, Kolkata – 700008, against the consideration money as of Rs. 18,00,000/- ( Rupees Eighteen Lakhs ) only.

 

3. The Complainants did not perform the agreement for sale dated 14^th day of October’ 2014. The Complainants paid a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Thousand ) only, on 14-10-2014, and Rs. 2,00,000/- ( Rupees Two Lakhs ) only, and Rs. 7,00,000/- ( Rupees Seven Lakhs ) only, on 20-11-2015, totaling as of Rs. 12,60,000/- ( Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Sixty Thousand ) only. The complainants did not make any other or further payments towards consideration money of the said flat.
4. In consequent facts the complainants on expiry of the substantial period of time approached to this opposite party for the refund of money, and thus the opposite party arranged to pay back to the complainants. Thus in the entirety of the facts the disputes if any is a disputes related to the refund of money by the opposite party to the complainants.

 

5. The Complainants purchased a new flat in the month of December’ 2016, and asked to cancelled the agreement seeking thereby the back of their money. The said agreement for sale dated 14^th October’ 2014, come to an end on 13^th day of January’ 2016. Thus this opposite party thereafter sold out the said subjected flat to other intending purchaser.

 

Submissions ;

 

The Complainants are not entitled to get any relief in terms of their prayer, before the Hon’ble District Commission, as they asked for the refund of money paid by them to this opposite party. The complainants purchased another flat, in their own vicinity. The complainants were not interested at all in performing the agreement for sale dated 14-10-2014. Thus on expiry of the said agreement for sale and failure in making the balance consideration money by them the relationship between the complainants and this opposite party does not come in the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019.

 

The agreement for sale dated 14^th day of October’ 2014 expired on 13^th day of January’ 2016, and after expiry of substantial period in the year 2018, the complainants approached the Learned Commission, for refund of their money.

 

On the day of placing the consumer application, there was no agreement between the parties. There was no privity of contract between the parties. There was only seeking to get money back by the complainants on cancellation of the said agreement for sale dated 14^th day of October’ 2014, on 13^th day of January’ 2016. Thus the consumer application barred to be placed by the complainants.

 

On the day of placing the consumer application, there was no consumer disputes, between the parties, as meant for in the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019.

 

In the entirety of the facts of the complainants, the complainants have no consumer disputes with this opposite party, thus the Hon’ble District Commission lost its jurisdiction to entertain such consumer complaint lodged by the complainants.

 

 

-----------------------------------------XXX------------------------------------------