The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, has restrained Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Experion Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. from opening or allowing the operation of any restaurant-cum-bar or commercial establishment within the residential premises, including the badminton court and clubhouse area of the Experion Capital project in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The Commission also awarded ₹50,000 as litigation cost to the complainants.
Background
The complaint was filed by Smt. Prema Sinha and her husband, residents of Flat No. 0203 in Experion Capital, against Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd., Experion Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Chica Loca by Sunny Leone, and the Lucknow Development Authority.
The complainants alleged that the space designated for an indoor badminton court and other recreational facilities in the approved layout plan was illegally leased out for setting up a restaurant-cum-bar under the name “Chica Loca by Sunny Leone.” The lease agreement was executed without the consent of the residents, in violation of the original sanctioned plan (Permit No. 41210, dated 11.01.2017) and contrary to the fire safety norms and environmental clearance conditions.
Complainants’ Submissions
According to the complainants, the lease of the double-heighted clubhouse area, designated for residents’ recreational use, to a commercial restaurant entity not only breached the terms of the agreement but also threatened the safety and peaceful living of residents. They submitted that such commercial activity violated:
- Section 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016,
- Section 4(4) of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010, and
- Rule 5(4) of the U.P. Excise Rules, 1968, which prohibits the opening of liquor shops in proximity to residential areas.
They sought damages of ₹15,00,000 under various heads and ₹1,25,000 for litigation costs.
Opposite Parties’ Defence
Opposite parties contended that the leased premises were part of a commercial area, not the residential complex. They argued that the project was a mixed-use development and the lease did not contravene the approved layout. They denied the existence of a badminton court in the sanctioned plan and claimed the restaurant was a “family restaurant,” not a bar.
It was also argued that the complaint was time-barred and that similar issues were already pending before RERA and the High Court. Additionally, they claimed that the lessee, Aviyayaya Works Pvt. Ltd., was a necessary party.
Court’s Observations
After reviewing the 2017 and 2020 sanctioned plans, the Commission noted that the residential towers and commercial retail blocks were clearly separate, with distinct access points and fire tender pathways. The designated recreational facilities, including the badminton court and aerobics room, were clearly shown in the sanctioned maps.
The Commission held:
“In our view, the restaurant-cum-bar cannot be opened in the residential part of any project. This bench can take judicial notice of this fact that builders, after allotting the residential flats to the allottees and promising the facilities, cover the land for commercial purposes in an arbitrary manner.”
On the issue of limitation, the Commission held that the cause of action arose upon execution of the lease deed in favour of the restaurant, not at the time of map revision. Hence, the complaint was within the permissible two-year period under Section 65 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Commission also clarified that pendency before RERA and High Court does not bar filing of consumer complaints, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Imperia Structure Ltd. vs. Anil Patni & Ors., (2020) 10 SCC 783.
The Commission rejected the plea of estoppel and ruled that the lessee was not a necessary party, as the relief was sought only against the promoters.
Quoting the Supreme Court on the constitutional nature of consumer rights, the Commission emphasized:
“Consumerism constitutes the very spirit of the Constitution of India… The rights of a consumer are not merely constitutional or statutory guarantees, but are in fact, natural, and therefore, inalienable.”
Final Decision
The Commission ruled:
- The opposite parties are restrained from opening or permitting any restaurant-cum-bar or commercial establishment inside the residential premises, including the clubhouse area.
- The complainants are entitled to ₹50,000 as litigation cost, to be paid within 30 days.
Case Title: Smt. Prema Sinha & Anr. vs Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. SC/9/CC/25/2025
