ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. It is the builder who is petitioner before us. He was opposite party before the District Forum on a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant.
2. Complainant alleged deficiency in service on the ground that in spite of his having paid the price of the flat to be built by the petitioner and also having obtained the possession thereof, the petitioner has failed to execute the sale deed. Petitioner as a builder had agreement with Smt. Gyan Kumari Heda, owner of the land, to build the flats thereon and to sell the same to the prospective purchasers. For this purpose, Gyan Kumari Heda, landlady executed power of attorney in favour of the petitioner. Complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on a plea raised by the builder that he had not received full consideration of the flat which was agreed to Rs. 5,91,000/- while the complainant had paid only Rs. 3,20,000/-.
3. Against that order, complainant went in appeal to the State Commission which allowed the same and set aside the order of the District Forum. State Commission directed the petitioner to execute the sale deed and also directed payment of cost incurred by the complainant.
4. Now it is the builder who is the petitioner before us. State Commission had observed that builder could not have given possession of the flat when over Rs. 2.00 lakhs were yet to be recovered by him and his version and documents on record appear to be not believable. As a matter of fact, nothing has been argued on this aspect before us. The contention which is raised by the petitioner before us that power of attorney given by Gyan Kumari Heda, the land-lady had been cancelled and he could not convey the title deed to the respondent-complainant. This fact was also brought to the notice of the State Commission which did not allow the petitioner to lead any evidence on this aspect of the matter. We think State Commission should not have brushed aside this contention of the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is admitted before us that landlady is distantly related to the complainant, through her husband. Petitioner alleged that it was through the instrumentality of the complainant himself that power of attorney was got cancelled.
5. We find no ground to interfere in the impugned order of the State Commission when it directed execution of the sale deed even though no proper title would have passed to the complainant. We, therefore, dismiss this petition. Let the sale deed whatever its legal value be executed by the petitioner, the builder in favour of the purchaser of the flat, the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.