COMMERCIAL PURPOSE IN HOUSING MATTERS

So far we had been discussing commercial purpose in the light of various judgments pronounced by the apex court because no specific definition has been given in the act .Courts are discussing the matters comparing with self livelihood and often distinguish them on the yardstick of profit and loss, quantum of business etc.In housing matters, property purchased for commercial activities, malls industry etc. are treated out of consumer court jurisdiction they being clearly for commercial purpose. Now the question has been raised on residential property also if they are purchased for earning profit.  With the passage of time now people do invest their money in other than normal business activities and one such area chosen is investing in properties which attracts huge benefits. This is the new investment mode under scan of courts and recently National Commission has refused to entertain a case of deficiency in services to a complainant who has alleged against builder for not giving possession in specific period. Court observed that booking of more than one flat or flats in various builders’ schemes are a commercial activity for the purpose of profit and resale and not for residential purpose.

National commission has decided a case in the matter between DLF Limited&others and Abdul Azam, Abdul Basit, Abdul Waseem, 11(2015) CPJ344 (NC) on 05.02.2015 on the above issue wherein appeals in six cases decided by the honorable State Commission of Delhi had been filed. The question of jurisdiction of the consumer courts is the main plea contending complainant is not a consumer as the purchase of flat was meant for commercial purpose.

Delhi state consumer dispute redressal commission pronounced six orders  in six individual cases on 2.6.2006 .Three out of these matters relate to the flats booked by the complainants in Richmond Park Project of DLF Universal Ltd. Other three matters relate to booking of flats by the same complainants in Regency Park Project of the same DLF Universal Ltd.  

VISBA is a partnership firm; three partners of the firm are complainants against DLF Universal Ltd for deficiency in services for non delivery of flats within specific time. All the three partners had booked flats for the purpose of gain and yielding more benefit in different schemes of opposite party as said above. This fact could be very well proved from a letter written by the firm on their letterhead and admitted that all investment was made for multiplying money .Not only this ,it was also contended in the letter that they were the regular investors in properties and they have properties with DLF -Regency park, Rechmond park, Shopping mall and Supermart. Contents of their letter is reproduced as hereunder-

We are one of the regular investors of your esteemed organization .Atpresent we have the following properties with you –

REGENCY PARK      Y-212

                                    Y-202

Y-203

                        RECHMOND PARK  F-061

                                                            F-062

                                                            F-052

                        SHOPPING MALL  0-125               

                        SUPERMART         C-041C

 

They further stated-

“You would recall that we had made the booking only for investment sake to earn more yield on our money .we had booked these flats at peak time assuming that money will multiply with your esteemed organistion .But due to depressed market ,the rates of properties have gone down drastically and we have lost of money in the above deals instead of earning some money.”

Beyond any reasonable doubt ,all these bookings were for the commercial purpose.                       

On the basis of this admission National Commission held that if more than one flat is booked, it is treated as booking for investment purpose even the nature of property is residential.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous

Next