Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. VS Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

VS

Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd.

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

Civil Appeal No 4000 of 2019

 

ISSUES

·       Whether the complaint maintainable in court or barred by limitation period?

 

FACTS

1.     The appellant is a members of co-operative housing society and the respondent in this case is a builder who has constructed two wings i.e. Wings A and B. The respondent had entered into an agreements to sell the flats with individual purchasers in accordance with the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The individual purchasers are the members of the Co-operative Housing Society who booked flats in 1993 and granted possession in 1997.

2.     According to the Appellant in this case the respondent i.e., builder is failed to obtain the occupancy certificate and due to which the appellant have to take temporary water and electricity connections at higher rates than the market rates.

3.     On 8 July 1998, the appellant i.e. Members of Co-operative housing society instituted a consumer complaint before the SCDRC Mumbai having prayer to obtain the occupation certificate. On 28^th August 2014 the SCDRC directed the respondent to obtain an occupancy certificate within four months and directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards reimbursement of extra water charges paid. Before the pronouncement of order in SCDRC, on 7 April 2014 the respondent also made an offer of a one-time settlement which was refused by the appellant.

4.     Then after non-execution of SCDRC order by the respondent, the appellant filed an appeal in front of NCDRC seeking occupancy certificate and the dues of water and electricity charges which is rejected by the court on the basis of barred by limitation.

5.     Then the appellant claimed before NCDRC that the complaint was not barred by limitation as the payment of excess charges and the no-issuance of occupancy certificate is a continuing cause of action. And also the cause of action also arose on 7 April 2014 when the respondent sent a letter for one time settlement.

6.     The NCDRC held that the complaint was barred by the limitation as the cause of action arose at the time when the appellants obtain individual water and electricity connections and the authorities ordered the appellants to pay higher charges. So the Limitation period arose from that date and cannot be extended by the communication between the parties and also no relief was sought for non-availability of occupancy certificate by the appellant.

Then the appellant files an appeal in front of Supreme Court for sought relief of claims and obtaining occupancy certificate.

 

Court Held

The complaint maintainable in court and not barred by limitation period.

·       In accordance with the non-availability of occupancy certificate due to which the appellants have to pay higher taxes to the municipal authorities is a continuous wrong.

·       The respondent was responsible for the transferring of the title of flats tot the society along with occupancy certificate and due to failure of the respondent to obtain the occupancy certificate till now. This is a continuous wrong against the respondent and the complaint is maintainable.