A senior citizen who is also a Divyangjan was directed to be paid over Rs 13.35 lakh of accumulated rent with seven percent interest since 2014 by a district commission when the developer failed to give the same after taking over the redevelopment of his building. The order also directed the developer to give the complainant Rs 13,000 for mental harassment and litigation cost within 30 days of the order due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
The order was passed on November 4, 2022 RG Wankhade (president) and SV Kalal (member) of the Additional Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on a complaint by Shyamsunder Jagdishprasad Sharma against M/s. Vibha Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chief Officer, MHADA (Mumbai Board) and The Bharat Vaishali CHS Ltd.
Sharma, a senior citizen and Divyangjan resided in Ghatkopar in a building that is on land belonging to MFADA. MHADA had given the land on a lease of 99 years to The Bharat Vaishali CHS Ltd.
Complainant is a member of society. Since the building was old, the work to demolish it, and have a new one with a rehab component was given to Vibha Properties. An agreement was made with each person wherein the developer promised to give everyone a new flat with added area and rent of Rs 13,000 per month till the new place is given. As per the agreement, the developer gave rent regularly to the complainant till June 2014. Thereafter, rent was stopped and despite complaints and letters to the developer, MHADA, the housing department and its minister, no respite came. The complainant had sought Rs 13,000 rent since July 2014 till date along with interest.
The complainant then approached the Commission where he sought rent, compensation for mental harassment and recovery of medical expenses incurred due to harassment faced, an increase in rent amount and litigation costs. Since the developer did not reply to Commission's notice, an order to move exparte was passed in June 2022 and stated that there was no other alternative except passing an adverse order. While Sharma gave proof of having a flat and the agreement with the developer, he did not file any charges against MHADA or the Society. He also did not give any proof of the ailment he suffered on account of not receiving rent and the medical expenses he had to bear even though he sought compensation for it.
The Commission observed that rent should have been given as per agreement and in a city like Mumbai, having to pay for stay can be burdensome on one's budget and can cause mental trauma. It then directed that the developer pay the complainant's accumulated rent and not fail to pay on time the monthly rent in future.