OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAGATSINGHPUR
PRESENT:- SRI S.N.MISHRA,PRESIDENT.
A N D
SRI B.C. SWAIN, MEMBERS.
MRS. M.M.RATH, MEMBERS.
Consumer Complaint No.151 of 2009
Date of Filing: -11.09.2009
Date of Judgment: -30.12.09
Abhimanyu Rout
s/o-Trilochan Rout
vill-Deuligrameswar
Po/Dist-Jagatsinghpur
……………………….complainant
Versus
1. Project Manager
Reliance Communication Pvt.Ltd
Orissa Region
6th floor
Fortune Tower
Chandrasekharpur
Bhubaneswar
2. Land Requisition Officer
Reliance Communication Pvt.Ltd
Orissa Region
6th floor
Fortune Tower
Chandrasekharpur
Bhubaneswar
………………………Opp.parties
For complainant :- Sri S.K.Mohanty , Advocate
For Opp.parties :- Sri G.Dash , Advocate.
In short the case of the complainant is that he has permitted the o.ps. ( Reliance Telecom) on lease a part of his land measuring an area of A.o.19 out of plot No.2109 under khata No. 367 in mouza Kaduapada under Jagatsinghpur Tahasil to avail 50” * 50”= 2500 square feet on an agreed monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- with effect from 31.10.2007 besides refundable security of Rs.21,000/- to install Telecommunication net work. But till date not a single pie has been paid despite repeated persuasion , hence he sustained mental agony with financial loss.
In short the written version of the opposite parties is that neither the allegation alleging non release of rent against leased out land , nor , the complainant comes within meaning of this Act, hence this complaint gets no merit for adjudication. Challenging this proceeding U/s.11(2) of the Act, it is submitted that the answering opposite parties as is holding office of profit at Bhubaneswar outside territorial jurisdiction of this district forum the same is not maintainable.
Out of aforesaid pleadings of both the parties as discussed above it seems to an admitted case that some portions of and as per agreement dt.31.10.2007 has been leased out in favor of opposite parties by complainant for installation of a tower for their commercial purpose as such the complainant as land lord by no strech of imagination comes within meaning of this Act as “consumer “ defined U/s.2(1) d (ii) of the Act. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned advocate for opposite parties this complaint does not fall within scope of this Act.
ORDER
In the result this complaint is allowed on contest against opposite parties but no order as to cost.
Smt.M.M.Rath B.C.Swain S.N.Mishra
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT