Whether private agreement between builder and some of the slum dwellers is binding over Slum Rehabilitation Authority?

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1359 of 2023

Decided On: 15.12.2023

Sayunkta Sangarsh Samiti and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.

Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1346/2023.

Print Page

Supreme court:Land owner entering into contract with builder for construction is consumer

On a studied scrutiny of the aforesaid clauses, it is clear
as day that the appellant is neither a partner nor a
co-adventurer. He has no say or control over the construction.
He does not participate in the business. He is only entitled to,
as per the MOU, a certain constructed area. The extent of
area, as has been held in Faqir Chand Gulati (supra) does
not make a difference. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is
that the appellant is a consumer under the Act.
22. As the impugned orders will show, the District Forum
had allowed the claim of the appellant. The State Commission
had dismissed the appeal holding that the claim of the
appellant was not entertainable under the Act, he being not a
consumer and the said order has been given the stamp of
approval by the National Commission. Therefore, there has to
be appropriate adjudication with regard to all the aspects
except the status of the appellant as a consumer by the
appellate authority. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the
judgments and orders passed by the National Commission and
the State Commission are set aside and the matter is remitted
to the State Commission to re-adjudicate the matter treating
the appellant as a consumer.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 944 OF 2016
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1633 of 2015)
BUNGA DANIEL BABU 
V
M/S SRI VASUDEVA CONSTRUCTIONS 
& ORS
DATED:July 22, 2016
Dipak Misra, J.

Print Page

Whether builder is liable to pay damages to purchaser for breach of duty owed by builder to purchaser?

 In this backdrop, it would be seen that in the tort liability arising out of contract, equity steps in and tort takes over and imposes liability upon the defendant for unqualified damages for the breach of the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Equity steps in and relieves the hardships of the Plaintiff in a common law action for damages and enjoins upon the defendant to make the damages suffered by the plaintiff on account of the negligence in the case of the duties or breach of the obligation undertaken or failure to truthfully inform the warranty of title and other allied circumstances. In this case, it is found that four floors were unauthorisedly constructed and came to be demolished by the New Delhi Municipal Council. It does not appear that the owners of the flats were informed of the defective or illegal construction and they were not given notice of caveat emptor. Resultantly, they are put to loss of lacs of rupees they have invested and given as values of the flats to the builder- respondent.

12. The question arising for consideration is: whether the appellants should be re-compensated for the loss suffered by them? The High Court in the impugned judgment has directed the return of the amount plus the escalation charges. We are informed that the escalated price as on the date is around 1.5 crores per flat. In this situation, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, we think that the builder-respondent should pay Rs. 60 lacs including the amount paid by the allottees, within a period of six months from today.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3694 of 1997

Decided On: 06.05.1997

Appellants: Manju Bhatia (Mrs) and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad and G.B. Patnaik, JJ.

Citation: AIR1998SC223,(1997)6SCC370,

Print Page