Mukul Ranjan Ghosh And Anr vs Tapan Kumar Basu And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1886 Cal

07.04.2022
KC(AD12&13)



                           F.A. 82 of 2014
                    Mukul Ranjan Ghosh and Anr.
                              -versus-
                     Tapan Kumar Basu and Ors.
                                 With
                           F.A. 83 of 2014
                    Mukul Ranjan Ghosh and Anr.
                              -versus-
                     Tapan Kumar Basu and Ors.




     Mr. Bhudeb Chatterjee,
     Mr. Basudeb Ghosh.......................For the appellants.


     Mr. Sandip Ghose,
     Mr. Subrata Das,
     Mr. Debayan Ghosh.......................For the respondents.

Both the appeals were taken up together.

First we will deal with the objection of Mr.

Chatterjee, learned advocate for the appellants with

regard to the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain

the suits.

We have carefully scrutinised the West Bengal

Buildings (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and

Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993. Mr. Chatterjee

submitted that Section 12A of the Act imposed a bar on

the jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain and

decide any matter arising out of the scope and

operation of the Act. The subject matter of the suits was

covered by the Act and hence, the authority mentioned

in the Act had the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the

issue.

The dispute involved in the suits is plain and

simple:

(a) It is between the vendor (appellant) and the

purchaser (respondent) of an immovable

property comprising of two flats where the

purchaser upon payment of full consideration

is in possession of the property.

(b) The vendor has not executed and registered a

proper deed of sale in favour of the purchaser,

as a result of which his title to the property,

has not been perfected.

The matters which are dealt with or covered by

the said Act do not include this kind of dispute arising

out of an agreement for sale between a vendor and a

purchaser. It deals with different disputes involving the

promoter, owner, occupier etc. pertaining to the

construction activities with regard to a property.

Hence, in our opinion this objection has no merit

and is rejected accordingly.

There is no contradiction of the fact that the

respondents have paid the full consideration for the two

flats to the appellants and are in possession thereof. In

our opinion the appellants have got no valid reasons to

refuse execution and registration of a sale deed in

favour of the respondents.

However, Mr. Chatterjee submits that while

proceeding with the construction work in the flats, the

appellants had incurred certain expenses as long ago in

2000 which have not been paid by the respondents.

In those circumstances we dispose of these

appeals by affirming the decree of the learned court

below, subject to the following modification.

The respondents in the suits shall pay to the

appellants a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac) by 30th

April, 2022, which in our best judgment is the unpaid

value of the materials and services rendered by the

appellants to the respondents in the two flats. Payment

of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac) as per our decree and

execution and registration of conveyance shall be done

simultaneously.

If the respondent makes payment of Rs.

1,00,000/- (One Lac) and the appellant fails to execute

and register the deed of conveyance, the same shall be

registered within two weeks of such failure by the

learned Registrar General of this court or any other

senior officer nominated by the learned Registrar

General.

The expenses for registration, stamp duty etc.

shall be borne by the parties in accordance with the

agreement or conveyancing practice.

The impugned decrees in the respective suits in

the learned court below are modified to the above

extent.

(I.P. MUKERJI, J.)

(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)