Mumbai: In a significant development, the Suburban Mumbai District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has agreed to admit a complaint against developers Shabir Shaikh and Ravikant Mishra despite a 14-year delay.
The case was filed by Maria D'Silva, a Malad resident, who claimed alleged breach of contract by the developers in a redevelopment project dating back to 2010. The commission’s decision was based on the concept of “continuous breach of contract” due to the absence of an Occupational Certificate (OC), which the developers have yet to receive from the Municipal Corporation.
Maria D'Silva had been staying in a rented property owned by her landlord, which the developers undertook to redevelop. As per the agreement signed in 2010, the developers promised D'Silva a 390-square-foot flat in the redeveloped building, along with a security deposit of Rs 40,000 and a monthly rent of Rs 4,000 for 18 months.
However, the developers only made a partial payment of Rs 1,62,000, and the complainant was allegedly never given possession of the promised flat, despite the completion of the building, 'Celebration Apartment.'
Advocate J. Dave, representing D'Silva, argued that the developers still owed Rs 9,09,954, including arrears, and pointed out that the absence of the OC constitutes a continuing breach of contract. The commission initially flagged the 14-year delay as exceeding the limitation period.
However, Dave successfully argued that the case falls under the “continuous cause of action” doctrine, citing multiple Supreme Court rulings, including the landmark judgment in *Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd.*, which established that the absence of an OC keeps the cause of action ongoing, making limitation laws inapplicable.
Based on these arguments and precedents, the commission allowed the complaint to be admitted despite the significant time lapse.
