Revision Petition No. 3 of 2011

17th March, 2011

Petitioner Counsel: MOHIT BHANSALI
Respondent Counsel: A.V. PATWARDHAN

JUDGMENT

Mr. S.B. MHASE, Hon'ble President :- Heard Mr.Mohit Bhansali, Advocate for the Revision Petitioners/ original complainants and Mr.A.V. Patwardhan, Advocate for the respondents/original opponents.

2. This Revision Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage finally with the consent of the parties.

3. This Revision Petition is directed as against the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban on the application filed by the Revision Petitioners/original complainants under Section 13(3-B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking interim relief in the pending consumer complaint No.560/2010. By the impugned order dated 29/12/2010, District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban has rejected the application dated 27/09/2010 filed by the complainants/Revision Petitioners seeking grant of interim relief. Ad-interim relief which was granted by the said District Consumer Forum on 01/10/2010 has been also vacated by the said order. Therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection of the Interim Relief Application, Revision Petitioners have approached to the State Commission invoking powers of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4. The original complaint No.560/2010 has been filed by the complainants on or about 01/10/2010. In the said complaint, there are in all 27 complainants. Complainant No.1 is a 'Shewa Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.', while complainant Nos.2to27 are the members of the said Society. Opponent Nos.5,6&7 are also members of the said Society. However, opponent Nos.1,2&5 are builders/developers and opponent Nos.3&4 are Local Authority & Officer of Local Authority. However, while filing Revision Petitions, it appears that all the members of the said Society, who initially had filed complaint were not available and therefore, Revision Petition has been filed by the Society and the original complainant Nos.1,2,4to14 & 18to22. The original opponents Nos.1to7 have been shown as 'Respondent Nos.1to7' in this Revision Petition and the original complainant Nos.3,15,16,17&23 are now shown as 'Respondent Nos.8to12' in this Revision Petition. However, Revision Petitioners have made a statement in the memo of Revision that they were made respondents because they were not available. Thus, it is clear that the names of respondent Nos.8to12 are not in any way adverse to the Revision Petitioners. Not only that, but the Revision Petitioners and respondent Nos.8to12 were also represented by the same Advocate before the District Consumer Forum.

5. Consumer Complaint No.560/2010 was filed by the Revision Petitioners before the District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban. In the said complaint, complainants have prayed that respondents/org. opponents be directed to procure Completion Certificate in respect of complainant No.1/Society building and it be further directed to execute Conveyance Deed in respect of said building commonly known as "Shewa Apartments" located on Plot No.33-B, Suburban Scheme No.VII, Khar Municipal No. NIL and bearing CTS Nos.E/859-E, Village Danda, admeasuring 2540 Sq.Yards equivalent to 2123.44 sq.mtrs. It is further prayed that the respondents/original opponents be restrained from submitting and/or getting revised plan sanctioned from the BMC in respect of part or portion of the said property and to direct them not to carry out construction activities over the said plot of land in any manner whatsoever without the prior written permission and/or consent of complainant Nos.1to29 and other reliefs are also claimed.

6. Following facts are not in dispute between the parties that -

The relationship of the complainants and the opponents is of 'consumers' and the 'builders/developers' and thereby a service provider. The scheme and the buildings which are a subject matter of the complaint are covered under the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. The total area of the plot which was developed by opponents/developers as per the approved layout and permission granted by the Local Authority in 1983 was/is 2123.44 sq.mtrs. Thus, the total area under the scheme in respect of which IOD was granted, was 2123.44 sq.mtrs. F.S.I. as per the DC Rules available in 1983 was One and therefore, the builders/developers/opponents were entitled to construct and utilize the F.S.I. admeasuring 2123.44 sq.mtrs. only. While getting permission in 1983 developers/opponents have reserved the area of tenanted building admeasuring 412.98 sq.mtrs. with a view that the said tenanted portion can be demolished in future and can be developed. Since total F.S.I. which was available on the plot was only 2123.44 sq.mtrs. and as such opponents/developers have reserved/preserved the building admeasuring 412.98 sq.mtrs., the F.S.I. which was available for construction of the said plot in the year 1983 was 1708 sq.mtrs. and therefore, Local Bodies have granted building permission accordingly. The scheme was floated by the opponents/builders/developers and in the said scheme, complainants have purchased the flats. Thus, it is to be noted that in 1983 when the permission was granted, total F.S.I. permissible under the said plot was consumed and since as per the DC Rule permissible F.S.I. was One, opponent Nos.1to7 could not have constructed buildings of more than 2123.44 sq.mtrs. Thus, total consumption of F.S.I. was 2123.44 sq.mtrs. (1708 sq. mtrs. to be constructed + 412.98 sq.mtrs. reserved or preserved building on the said plot to be demolished in future).

7. It appears that in due course of time, building admeasuring 1708 sq.mtrs. was constructed and the possession of the said building was given to the members of the Revision Petitioner No.1/Society on different dates, but on or about 1985. The Society i.e. Revision Petitioner No.1 was registered by the opponent Nos.1to7/developers some time in the month of May 1989 and since then the Revision Petitioners and the respondent Nos.8to12 are the members of the said Society.

8. After registration of the said Society, opponents/builders/developers were under obligation to execute a Conveyance of the said property in favour of the Society. However, even though there were demands by the original complainants in respect of execution of such Conveyance in favour of the Society, the facts remained that said Conveyance was not executed by the opponent Nos.1to7/developers. Notices to that effect were exchanged between the parties.

9. It appears that in the year 1991, there was change in the DC Rule and as a result of change in the DC Rule, earlier F.S.I. which was One, was enhanced and thereby it become permissible to have Two F.S.I. One F.S.I. was already consumed, but, however, as a result of increase in the F.S.I., One more F.S.I. become available on said plot. It further appears that thereafter the respondents/builders/developers have purchased TDR on 29/06/2004 on the basis of permission granted by the BMC on 11/02/2002 and therefore, the builders/developers/opponents decided to carry out construction admeasuring 2123.44 sq. mtrs. + 2123.44 TDR totally admeasuring 4246.88 sq.mtrs. and accordingly, IOD has been granted by the BMC. On getting IOD, commencement certificate was granted on 21/08/2008.

10. Meanwhile, the complainants were also carrying out correspondence with the opponents and also with the BMC, being apprehensive about rights of the Society being affected at the hands of opponents/developers. But, however, they found that suddenly the reserved building for tenants was demolished by opponents/builders/developers and when they found that all these permissions have been given by the BMC Officials without consent of the complainants, they have approached the District Consumer Forum for the purposes of reliefs as stated above.

11. It is to be noted that amongst the complainants, there are two types of members. There are some members, who were tenants in the erstwhile old building and they were given flats in the new building and other group of tenants who have directly purchased the flats namely, they were not earlier tenants in the said premises. So far as reserved building is concerned, which admeasured 412.98 sq.mtrs., it appears that there were 24 tenants in the said building. What is to happen to those tenants in the said premises, we need not consider in this Revision Petition. The facts to be noted at this stage and which are more important and relevant is that the opponents/builders/ developers are now trying to exhaust an additional F.S.I. made available on the said plot as a result of modification of the DC Rule in the year 1991, and are also desirous of loading TDR admeasuring 2123.44 sq.mtrs. on the said premises. The complainants are having objection for such consumption of F.S.I and loading of TDR on the said plot.

12. In this respect there are two types of agreements on record i.e. agreement dated 19/02/1985 which was executed between the opponents and the purchaser Radha Dwarkadas Ahuja, etc. This document is executed between the builder/developers and the flat purchasers who have directly purchased the flats from the builders/developers/opponents. Such types of agreements have been executed with the complainants, who are direct purchasers of the flats in the said scheme. Another Agreement has been executed between the opponents and the tenant purchaser Bhagwan Thakurdas Balchandani, etc. on 04/09/1985. This another set of agreements were executed between the tenant purchasers i.e. persons who were residing in the said premises as tenants earlier to the development. It requires to be mentioned at this stage that though some of the conditions which are incorporated in the agreement with the direct purchasers of the flats have not incorporated in the agreement which was executed with the tenant purchasers, yet, both the purchasers of the flats, namely, direct purchasers and the tenant purchasers are the members of the said Society. The opponents/developers and promoters are members of the said Society. The relevant clause which requires consideration from agreement dated 19/02/1985 is clause (o) as reflected in the introductory para of the said agreement and the said clause has been considered by the District Consumer Forum.

13. Said clause is as follows :-

"(o) The vendor has further informed the purchasers and as per the plan of Bombay Municipal Corporation, the old structure of ground and first on the said property occupied by the tenants shall continue to be there and for the said purpose, the Vendor shall become and continue to remain the member of the proposed co-operative Society/Limited Company/Association of Persons/Condominium and the said tenants shall continue to be tenants of the Vendor alone. On demolishing the said old structure in future, the vendor shall be entitled to construct a new building thereon in the said property and shall be entitled to dispose of the same to intended purchaser on the terms mentioned herein."

14. It further appears that in view of this introductory para, following conditions reflected in the agreement -

"9) Nothing contained in this agreement shall be construed to confer upon the purchasers any right, title or interest of any kind of whatsoever into or over the said property or the said building or any part thereof such conferment of right in the said property to take place only on the execution of the Conveyance in favour of the Co-operative Housing Society and/or Limited Company and/or Association of Persons or Condominium to be formed as hereinabove provided.

10) The Purchasers shall have no claim save and except in respect of the particular flat hereby agreed to be acquired by them and all open spaces, parking places, lobbies, stair cases, terraces, etc. will remain the property of the Vendor until the said property is transferred or conveyed to the Co-operative Housing Society and/or Limited Company and/or Association of Persons or Condominium as hereafter mentioned by execution of the conveyance in its favour.

12) The Vendor shall have a right until the execution of conveyance in favour of the proposed Society as provided herein to consume and utilize the full F.S.I. available for construction till then and to make addition or raise additional storeys as may be permitted by the Bombay Municipal Corporation and other Competent Authorities. Such additions structures and storeys will be the sole property of the Vendor who will be entitled to dispose of the same or the flat therein in any way, he chooses and the Purchasers hereby consent to the same. The agreement with the Purchasers as well as with all the acquirers of flats in the said building shall be subject to the rights of the Vendor herein contained and/or declared and the Purchasers shall not be entitled to raise any objection or to claim any abatement in the price of the flats agreed to be acquired by them and/or to any compensation or damages on the ground of inconvenience or any other grounds whatsoever.

23. After the building is completed and is ready and fit for occupation and the Society is incorporated and registered in the manner hereinabove mentioned and only after all the flats in the said building have been sold and disposed off by the Vendor and after the Vendor has received all dues payable to him under the terms of the Agreements with the acquirers of various flats in the said building, the Vendor shall execute in favour of the Society and/or Limited Company/Association of Persons and/or Condominium so registered, a conveyance of the property with the building."

15. So far as agreement with the tenants purchasers are concerned, though the above terms and conditions are not reflected in their agreements except clause No.20 which is similar to clause No.23 which is reproduced above.

16. In view of these documents on record, Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that it was the responsibility of the opponents/builders/developers to execute the conveyance in favour of the Society. He relied upon Rule No.9 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Rules, 1964 coupled with clause No.23, referred to above and submitted that if there is failure on the part of the opponents to execute the conveyance in favour of the society within 4 months after the registration of Society, the rights of builders/developers/opponents in the said plot are extinguished and opponents are not entitled to take benefits of the additional F.S.I. available on the said plot. Thus, he submitted that in the present matter, when the Society was registered in the year May 1989, additional F.S.I. was not available and even T.D.R. could not even loaded unless the permission has been granted by the Society. He further submitted that in that year also T.D.R. was not purchased by the opponents and T.D.R. was purchased by the opponents somewhere in the year 2004. Thus, in short, his submission is that after registration of the Society in the year 1989 since opponents/builders have failed to execute conveyance in favour of the Society, rights of the opponents which were available to the opponents were forfeited/extinguished after period of 4 months in view of Rule No.9 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Rules, 1964 and therefore, he submitted that terms and conditions of the agreement which has been executed with the purchaser of the flat has to be read in this context with Rule No.9 and according to the Learned Counsel, opponent/builders/developers are not entitled to preserve their rights contrary to the provisions of the law namely, Rule No.9.

17. In support of his submissions he relied upon the judgement of the Bombay High Court in the Appeal No.1195/2009 decided on 14/01/2010. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners also submitted that after the registration of the said Society, direct flat purchasers and tenant flat purchasers are members of the said Society. As between the direct flat purchasers and the opponents there is one set of agreements dated 19/02/1985 which consists the above referred clause (o). But he submitted that there is another set of agreements with the tenant flat purchasers, wherein the above referred terms and conditions are not incorporated and therefore, he submitted that after the registration of the Society, these agreements have lost its efficacy because it cannot be said that some agreements dated 19/02/1985 would operate against all members of Society because, according to him, the agreement dated 19/02/1985 cannot be enforced as against the other members of the Society with whom the builders/developers/opponents have entered into agreement dated 04/09/1985 as the agreement dated 04/09/1985 is different from agreement dated 19/02/1985. In short, the tenant flat purchasers cannot be bound by these terms and conditions of agreement dated 19/02/1985 and their rights to enjoy the F.S.I. cannot be allowed to be affected by agreement of the opponents executed with the direct flat purchasers. In short he submitted that after registration, these documents cannot be looked into, but the case will be governed by Rule No.9 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Rules, 1964 and if there is a failure to execute conveyance on the part of the opponents/builders/developers within 4 months after registration of the Society their rights to enjoy F.S.I. and additional F.S.I. admeasuring 412.98 sq.mtrs. are no more available to them. In fact such F.S.I. if available is became property of the Society.

18. The Learned Counsel Mr.Patwardhan, who appears for the opponents/builders after pointing out the above referred clauses, submitted that rights of the builders and developers to use the F.S.I. available on the said plot has been preserved and protected till execution of the conveyance deed. He submitted that after registration of the Society, the conveyance was to be executed after all dues are cleared by the Society and therefore, he submitted that repeatedly the opponents have requested the Society and its members to clear up the dues, but they have failed to clear up the dues and therefore, conveyance was not executed. He submitted that in the year 1989 there was no intentional avoidance of execution of conveyance because according to him, even the opponents were not aware of the fact that in the year 1991, F.S.I. will increase and the opponents/builders/developers can take the benefits of the said F.S.I. Therefore, he submitted that said act of non-execution is absolutely innocent act and not done with intention to cause any prejudice to the Revision Petitioners/Society. The opponents/developers are using the additional F.S.I. because it has become available to them as a result of amendment of the DC Rule and they are loading T.D.R. as they have purchased the T.D.R. in the market. He submitted that the appropriate plan was submitted to the Corporation and it has been approved by the Corporation and on the basis of said approved plan, commencement certificate has been given and thereafter, the building wherein the rights of builders/developers/opponents were preserved in view of clause No.(o) of the agreement stated above, opponents are going to construct building. Thus, according to him, opponents/developers are acting within four corners of law and there is no case made out by the complainants for grant of injunction as prayed for and he submitted that District Consumer Forum was justified in relying upon clause No.(o) and rejecting the Interim Relief Application of original complainants/Revision Petitioners.

19. The above referred facts do point out that in the year 1981 when first time, permission to construct was taken, F.S.I. was one. Thereafter, in the year 1985 agreements were executed as stated and the possession of the flat was given to the direct purchasers of flats and tenant purchasers of flats. In the year 1989, Society was registered and after registration of the Society, Revision Petitioner No.1/Society had demanded execution of the conveyance. Correspondence to that effect is reflected on record. Facts remained that within 4 months from the date of registration of the Society, conveyance was not executed and later on in the year 1991, DC Rule changed and the additional F.S.I. One was became available. It further appears that opponents had purchased T.D.R. to some extent in 2004 and now they have obtained permission to construct and on that basis they have demolished the old tenanted building of 412.98 sq.mtrs. and as against that they are now going to construct a building of having F.S.I. 4426.88 sq.mtrs. The question is whether under the above referred circumstances, prohibitory order shall be issued to the opponents restraining them to construct the said building.

20. Rule No.9 of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Rules, 1964 is as follows:-

"9.Period for conveyance of title of promoter to organization of flat purchasers - If no period for conveying the title of the promoter to the organization of the flat purchasers is agreed upon, the promoter shall (subject to his right to dispose of the remaining flats, if any) execute the conveyance within four months from the date on which the Co-operative society or the company is registered or, as the case may be, the association of the flat takers is duly constituted.

When a promoter has submitted his property to the provisions of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 by executing and registering a Declaration as required by section 2 of the Act, and no period for conveying the title of the promoter in respect of an apartment to each apartment taker is agreed upon, the promoter shall execute the conveyance or deed of apartment in favour of each apartment taker within four months from the date, the apartment taker has entered into possession of his apartment."

21. While considering Rule No.9, the Bombay High Court has also considered the amendment in the said rule. While considering the submissions made in view of amendment, the Bombay High Court has observed -

"Rule 8 casts a duty on the promoter to see that the Society should be registered within 4 months and, Rule 9 further casts a duty on the promoter to convey the flats to the owners within further 4 months. The appellant/defendant had not done either of the things as such. Further question therefore is, whether as per the agreement, property could still be said to be vested in promoter or not. The Legislature certainly intended that formality of conveying the title and formation of the Society must be completed within the time as stipulated so that unscrupulous promoter could not take advantage of the same. Although the words "whereas after the registration of the society, the residual FAR shall be available to the society" are deleted from clause 4 of the model agreement, the question is whether the promoter can indefinitely postpone the registration of the society and thus retain alleged FAR with him. In spite of deletion of words as stated above, neither Rule 8 nor clause No.4 can be interpreted to give an unfettered right to the promoter to postpone registration of the society and take away the right of the flat owners to avail FAR after 4 months. If that is to be interpreted in that way, that would defeat the intention of the Legislature to vest the Society with residual FSI and to convey the flats to the owners within further 4 months. In Ravindra Mutenja's case, referred to above, this Court observed as follows :-

"The real issue as has been noted earlier is what is the stage up to which the developer/owner can put up additional construction after the building in terms of the registered plan has been constructed and occupied. In may opinion, once the buildings shown in the approved plan submitted in terms of the regulations under an existing scheme filed before the authorities under MOFA Act, have been completed and possession handed over, the builder/owner cannot content, that because he has not formed the society and/or not conveyed the property by sale deed under the Act he is entitled to take advantage of any additional F.S.I. that may become available because of subsequent events. That would be so at the stage the building is under construction or the building is not completed and/or purchasers are not put in occupation provided such building forms part of the development plan and/or lay out plan already approved. Subsequent amendment of the lay out plan after the building plan is registered under MOFA, without the consent, prima facie, of the flat purchasers would not be permissible. It may be possible to accept that the development plan could be modified as long as the right of the purchasers and the benefits which they are entitled to including recreational and open areas are not effected by the revised development plan. Once the building is completed and the purchasers are put in occupation in terms of plan filed and the time to form the society or convey the property in terms of the agreement or the Rules framed under MOFA is over, the permission of such purchasers would be required.

In the instant case, the building completion certificate for the plaintiffs building, was issued in the year 1997. The builder/owner defendant Nos.1,3 and 4 had to put up the construction, based upon the permission/license granted. The defendant Nos.1,3 and 4 had to construct the building and to convey the title by sale deed in terms of Rule 9. If property had been conveyed, prima facie the remaining F.S.I. or F.S.I. which become subsequently available on the facts of the case, would be to the society to whom the land had to be conveyed. The record shows that the building was approved in December, 2001. It cannot prima facie, be said that defendants Nos.1,24 and 5 have any rights under which they are entitled to put up an additional building contrary to section7-A of the Act."

22. Thus, what we find at this prima-facile stage that if the conveyance is not executed within 4 months of registration of Society either intentionally or unintentionally, the consequences follows that residual and/or additional F.S.I. cannot be availed by the builders/developers and therefore, there appears to be a prima-facie case in favour of the complainants/Revision Petitioners that the F.S.I. of the said property, residual or additional F.S.I. of the said property is not available to the opponents/builders. In fact had the conveyance been executed within 4 months in the year 1989, said additional F.S.I. would have been of the ownership of the Revision Petitioners because at that time said F.S.I. was not in existence and available, but it came into existence by way of additional F.S.I. in the year 1991. If it is a position in respect of F.S.I., then the position of opponents/developers became very precarious and worst, at least at this prima-facie case, so far as lodging of T.D.R. on the property of the Society is concerned. Because T.D.R. is F.S.I. to be transferred from some other property and thus, if such a T.D.R. is transferred in the property of the Revision Petitioner No.1/Society, the Revision Petitioners will be under obligation to provide civil amenities and other things to the purchasers of the flats which are newly constructed in view of loaded T.D.R. Thus, prima-facie, we are of the considered view that the T.D.R. cannot be loaded on this property in the facts and circumstances referred to above. It is further to be noted that clause No.(o) contemplates that in respect of reserved tenanted building of 412.98 sq.mtrs., opponents/builders shall become a member of the Society and the tenants in the said building were treated as tenants of the opponents and not of the Society. There were only 24 tenants which were located in the 412.98 sq.mtrs. As against this, now the opponents are going to construct 36 tenements and thereby, forcing the Society to accept them as members of the Society after sale of the flats. What is important to be noted is that while consuming such type of F.S.I. and T.D.R., the land which was covered for 412.98 sq.mtrs. has been left away and much more open land has been taken under the plinth area as shown in the approved map of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and thereby, the open space of the Society is being encroached upon. What we primafacie find that the F.S.I. belongs to the Society and the T.D.R. cannot be loaded on this property and thereby the opponents/builders and developers are not prima-facie entitled to carry out construction as approved by the Corporation. In fact we find that the Corporation should have given a hearing opportunity to the Society and should have insisted upon consent of the Society. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation being a planning authority under the Maharashtra Town Planning Act of 1966 was under legal obligation to hear the Society and thereafter, to take a decision whether IOD is to be granted in favour of the builders/developers or not. The simple principle of opportunity of hearing has been ignored by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation has forgotten their legal obligations and statutory provisions which have been laid down to protect the interest of the purchaser of the flat and to stop exploitation of the flat purchasers at the hands of the builders/developers. Therefore, we do not find force and substance in the submissions of Mr.Patwardhan, Advocate for opponents.

23. Let the facts as it is. This complaint and the issues raised in complaint requires serious consideration by the District Consumer Forum. We find that the District Consumer Forum has not looked into the judgement of the Bombay High Court and the earlier judgements referred to in the said judgement. District Consumer Forum has only considered clause No.(o) ignoring the statutory provisions and vacated the order of statusquo which was granted by way of an ad-interim relief. What we find that when the rights of both parties are so opposed to each other that it requires adjudication, there is a prima-face case in favour of the complainants/Revision Petitioners. We also find that if the complainants/Revision Petitioners are not protected by the interim reliefs and the opponents are allowed to construct the building as per the permission, the loss which will be caused to the complainants is irreparable loss in case the complaint is allowed in favour of the complainants. Said loss cannot be compensated by any monetary consideration. Therefore to preserve the subject matter alive, it is in the fitness of the circumstances to prohibit the opponents from carrying out the construction of building which according to them was reserved in view of clause No.(o) of the said agreement dated 19/02/1985, referred to above. We prima-facie, therefore, of the view that the case has been made out for grant of injunction by the complainants/Revision Petitioners.

24. Since, it is a construction matter and the prices of the construction material are rising, we do not want to keep the construction of building to be kept pending for years together. We find that therefore, in these circumstances, after grant of injunction, it will be proper and in the interest of the parties to direct the District Consumer Forum to dispose of the complaint as early as possible after giving appropriate opportunity to the parties concerned. What we find that most of the facts are admitted. Formal reply version is required to be filed along with documents or the affidavits as are necessary. All these can be completed within a period of 90 days if the parties co-operate with the District Consumer Forum for disposal of the complaint. Therefore, we pass the following order :-

-: ORDER :-

1.Revision Petition is allowed.

2. Respondents/org. opponents/builders/developers are hereby restrained from carrying out any sort of construction on property viz. Plot No.33-B, Suburban Scheme No.VII Khar, Municipal No. nil and bearing CTS Nos.E/859-E, Village Danda till final disposal of the complaint by District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban.

3. District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban is hereby directed to dispose of the complaint after giving an appropriate opportunity and following procedure as laid down in the Consumer Protection Act,1986, Rules and the Regulations within period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order.

4. In the facts and circumstances, cost in the cause.

5. All the observations made in this interim order are prima-facie and the District Consumer Forum shall not be influenced by any of the observations. The District Consumer Forum shall consider the final disposal of the complaint on its own merits after hearing the parties.

6. Revision Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Petition allowed.