Purchase of flat for Commercial purpose
Commercial purpose
Aerstar Hemets Pvt Ltd v/s Adani Projects Ltd NC cc No 930 of 2018 decided on 18.11.2020
“A residential apartment even if being purchased for a guest house will not come under commercial activity of the company if examined on the above norms because this purchase/transaction/activity would not have close and direct nexus with the profit generation activity of the company ”
“the opposite party is bound to refund the amount paid if the alternative apartment is not taken by the complainant As money has remained with opposite party for some time ,the opposite party is liable to pay interest on this amount “’
Aerstar Hemets Pvt Ltd v/s Adani Projects Ltd NC cc No 930 of 2018 decided on 18.11.2020
“A residential apartment even if being purchased for a guest house will not come under commercial activity of the company if examined on the above norms because this purchase/transaction/activity would not have close and direct nexus with the profit generation activity of the company ”
“the opposite party is bound to refund the amount paid if the alternative apartment is not taken by the complainant As money has remained with opposite party for some time ,the opposite party is liable to pay interest on this amount “’
DLF Limited and others versus Abdul Azim and others, in February 2015,
If more than one flat was booked with one or more developers, it had to be treated as booking meant for investment purpose even if the nature of property was residential.
DLF in its defence raised the question of jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission, on the plea that the complainant was not a consumer because he had invested the money for commercial purpose and could not be treated in the forum as a consumer.DLF’s counsel referred to Section 2 (o) d of Consumer Protection Act, the clause that was added to the act via an amendment in 2002.
Reference was also made to the earlier decided cases on the subject. One of those cases was Chilkuri Adarsh versus Ess Ess Vee Constructions, wherein it was held that when a consumer booked more than one unit of residential premises, it amounted to booking of premises for commercial purpose.
A similar view was taken in the case of Jagmohan Chabra and others versus DLF Universal as also in Sunil Gupta versus Today Homes Infrastructure – in both these cases, the complainant had booked flats for commercial purposes.
Coming back to the case in question, the only fact to examine before the Commission was to check facts and establish if the present case fell under the category of commercial purpose. During the proceedings, a letter written by the complainants was produced by DLF. In the letter, written in the complainants ‘letterhead, it was stated that they had invested in properties for the purpose of yielding profit and the delay was causing them loss. The contents of the letter further included:
“…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 assuring that money will multiply with your esteemed organization.”
The letter proved that the complainant had booked flats solely for the purpose of yielding profits and that they were not entitled to be treated at par with the consumer who would have been struggling to get possession of the house to live in it.
