BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSAL COMMISSION AUTHORITY, NEW
DELHI
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 2104 OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF
LALIT JAIN …COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AND ANR. OTHER … OPPOSITE PARTIES
REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT TO REPLY DATED 22.12.2021, FILED
BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1(GREATER NOIDA
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY)
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
I, Lalit Jain, S/o. Late Sh. Dharam Kishore Jain am a Law-abiding
Senior citizen and presently reside at C-109, Sector 40, District
Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida 201 301, Uttar Pradesh, do hereby
solemnly swear and affirm as under: -
1. That I, the Complainant in the above captioned matter and being
conversant with the facts of the case am competent to swear and
file the present Rejoinder Affidavit.
2. That at the outset all statements, averments and submissions as
made by the Opposite party No.1 in the Affidavit under Reply
save and except what is matter of record or is specifically.
admitted hereinafter are specifically denied. Any non-traversal be
also treated as specifically denied by the deponent herein.
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS
3. That the Complainant entered in a Transfer deed of Residential
House no. 59, Block-C (Ebony Estate), Sector-PHI-04,
admeasuring 506.01 Sqm., Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to “said Property”)
with Opposite party No.2 and the said property was transferred
dated 02.07.2014.
4. That the Opposite party no. 2 i.e, Ms. Anu Varshney , W/o. Mr.
Ayush Varshney (hereinafter referred to as “Opposite Party
Noo. 22) is the transferor of Lease hold rights of the Residential
House no. 59 ,Block-C (Ebony Estate), Sector-PHI-04,
admeasuring506.01 Sqm, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
5. That the Opposite party No. 1 Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority (a Government of Uttar Pradesh
undertaking) is a body incorporated, regulated, controlled by
State Government i.e Government of Uttar Pradesh, established
in the year 1991 under the UP Industrial Area Development Act
1976, to provide modern City with High services and Delivery
standards (hereinafter referred to as “Opposite Party no. 1)
6. That the Opposite party No. 1 issued a demand notice dated
13.04.2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Demand Notice’) to the
Complainant in respect of the said Property interalia demand an
amount of Rs. 7,41,304.65/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty-One
Thousand Three Hundred Four & Paisa Sixty-Five Only)
calculated @ Rs. 1,465/- per Sq Mtr.
PARA WISE REPLY
7. The contents of Para no. 1 merit no reply as it is vehemently
denied that this Complaint deserves dismissal.
8. The contents of Para no. 2 are denied. The Complainant entered
into a lease agreement with Opposite Party no. 2 as he wanted to
live in a spacious and environmental friendly house nearby
over-congested Noida after his retirement. It is submitted that
the said investment by the Complainant in the property of the
Opposite Party No. 1 was purely for residential purposes and
does not own any other property in any other place.
9. The content of Para 3 is vehemently denied. It is denied that the
complaint is liable to be dismissed at the outset for being barred
by Limitation as the cause of action first arose when the demand
letter dated 13.04.2016 was issued by the Opposite party No.1
to the Complainant. The cause of action further arose when the
Complainant filed the applications under RTI Act to Opposite
party No.1 as to how much additional compensation was paid to
the farmers. The cause further arose when the Complainant
received a reply dated 17.08.2017 to the RTI applications. The
cause of action further arose when the complaint wrote/sent the
letters dated 02.05.2018 and 18.06.22018 to Opposite party
No.1 to issue fresh demand with correct amount of Rs. 173/- per
Sq. Mtr. The cause of action finally arose when the Complainant
received the letter dated 29.12.2018 issued by the Opposite
party No.1 regarding One time settlement. The cause of action
further arose when the Opposite party No.1 issued Notice/letter
dated 28.09.2019 and demanded an amount of Rs. 10,87,330/-
from the Complainant. Hence the complaint has been filed
within the period of limitation.
10. The contents of Para 4 are denied. The Demand notice dated
13.04.2016 issued by the Opposite party No. 1 mentioned a
judgment dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
the Uttar Pradesh much earlier before the transfer of the said
property by the Opposite party No.2 in favor of the Complainant
vide transfer deed dated 02.07.2014. It is further submitted that
the Opposite party No. 2 assured the Complainant at the time of
purchase/transfer of the said property that there are no dues
pending towards the said property.
11. The contents of Para 5 are denied as the sole responsible of
paying the additional compensation to the Opposite Party No. 1
was of Opposite party No. 2 in terms of clause 2 of Lease deed
read with clause 4 of the transfer deed. The Opposite party No. 1
vide its reply/letter dated 17.08.2017 admitted that in
compliance of the High Court order, an additional compensation
of Rs. 173/- per Sq. Mtr. was paid to the farmers. However, they
raised the initial demand exorbitantly to the rate of Rs. 1,465/-
per Sq Mt and thereafter a revised demand i.e., Rs. 1,287/-
without giving cogent and plausible reason for this unjustified
figure. It shows deficiency in providing service by the Opposite
Party No. 1 as they were demanding amount from allotees
without any rule and regulations. The Demand raised by the
Opposite Party No. 1 is liable to be set aside being unfair and
unjust.
12. The content of para 6 is denied. The clause 4 of the Transfer
deed dated 02.07.2014 states that:
“That the transferor represents, warrants and undertakes to the
transferee that said property is free from any and all sorts of
encumbrances such as charges, sale, lien, gift, exchange, pledge,
loan, dispute, mortgage, litigation, injunction, orders, attachments
and decree of any court of law etc, and also that there are no
outstanding dues and demands in respect of the said property
from either any statutory authority or otherwise to the date…
It was mutually agreed between the Complainant and the
Opposite party No. 2 that in case there is any demand/dues
whatsoever pending or raised by the Opposite party No. 1 in
future in respect of the said property, the Opposite party No. 2
shall be responsible and liable to pay the same.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, the deponent herein above, do hereby verify and affirm that
the Contents of the foregoing Affidavit are true and correct to
best of my knowledge and belief and the legal advice received by
me and based on the documents annexed herein. No part of it is
wrong and no material has been concealed therefrom.
Verified at Delhi on this the ___ day of June, 2023
DEPONENT
