Dark Mode
Image
Logo
Big Setback to Sunny Leone: Lucknow Consumer Commission Restrains Bar Inside Residential Project, Cites Violation of Approved Plan

Big Setback to Sunny Leone: Lucknow Consumer Commission Restrains Bar Inside Residential Project, Cites Violation of Approved Plan

Pranav B Prem


In a significant ruling protecting residential sanctity and consumer rights, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, has restrained Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Experion Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. from opening or permitting the operation of any restaurant-cum-bar or commercial establishment within the residential premises of the Experion Capital project in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The Commission also awarded ₹50,000 as litigation costs to the complainants—elderly residents of the society—recognizing their right to a peaceful and dignified life.

 

Also Read: Amazon Held Liable for Non-Delivery of Rakhi; Consumer Commission Awards ₹40,000 for Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice

 

Background of the Complaint

The complaint was filed by 74-year-old Smt. Prema Sinha and her husband, 78-year-old Shri H.C. Sinha, residents of Flat No. 0203 in Tower 3 of Experion Capital. They alleged that the developer had illegally leased out a portion of the clubhouse area—earmarked for recreational amenities like an indoor badminton court and aerobics room—for opening a commercial restaurant-cum-bar under the brand name Chica Loca by Sunny Leone.

 

They contended that this lease was executed without the prior consent of the allottees, in violation of the original sanctioned layout plan approved by the Lucknow Development Authority (Permit No. 41210 dated 11.01.2017), fire safety norms, and environmental clearances. They also pointed to breaches of:

 

  • Section 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016,

  • Section 4(4) of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010,

  • Rule 5(4) of the U.P. Excise Rules, 1968, which prohibits opening of liquor outlets in residential areas.

 

The complainants sought ₹15 lakhs as damages under various heads and ₹1.25 lakhs as litigation expenses.

 

Defence by the Opposite Parties

Experion Developers and Experion Hospitality contended that the project was a mixed-use development and the area leased was part of a designated commercial block. They claimed the area was never reserved for recreational use and denied any violation of sanctioned plans or applicable rules. They argued the restaurant was a “family restaurant,” not a bar, and that there was no mandatory need to include Aviyayaya Works Pvt. Ltd.—the actual lessee—as a party.

 

They also raised objections on limitation, misjoinder of parties, and the pendency of similar issues before RERA and the High Court.

 

Chica Loca by Sunny Leone was initially represented but failed to appear subsequently or file any written submissions. The Lucknow Development Authority argued that it had no direct consumer relationship with the complainants.

 

Findings of the Commission

The bench, comprising Mr. Sushil Kumar (Officiating President) and Ms. Sudha Upadhyay (Member), conducted a detailed analysis of both the 2017 and 2020 sanctioned maps, the agreement for sale, fire NOC, and environmental clearance.

 

The Commission found that:

 

  • The project was clearly demarcated into two separate zones: a residential area (with its own clubhouse, amenities, and access) and a commercial retail block.

  • The double-heighted premises leased for the restaurant-cum-bar were originally designated for recreational purposes including an indoor badminton court and dance/aerobic classes.

  • The lease deed dated 07.08.2024 executed with Aviyayaya Works Pvt. Ltd. pertained to 6,353.40 sq. ft. including portions of the club area, despite Clause D of the agreement for sale stating that no changes would be made to the sanctioned plan without prior consent of allottees.

 

The Commission concluded: "The restaurant-cum-bar cannot be opened in the residential part of any project. Builders, after allotting residential flats and promising facilities, arbitrarily convert these into commercial ventures, disturbing the peaceful living of residents."

 

It further observed that the parking terms under Clause 16 of the lease agreement would impose additional burdens on the residents and violate the fire safety clearance, which was granted only for residential use.

 

Rejecting the limitation argument, the Commission held that the cause of action arose on the date of execution of the lease deed—not when the map was revised in 2020. The complaint filed in 2025 was thus within the two-year limitation period under Section 65 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

The bench also rejected the bar of estoppel and the argument that Aviyayaya Works Pvt. Ltd. was a necessary party, noting that the complainants sought relief only against the promoters, not the lessee.

 

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Imperia Structure Ltd. v. Anil Patni [(2020) 10 SCC 783], the Commission reaffirmed that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to those under RERA and not barred by its provisions.

 

On Consumer Rights and Residential Peace

The Commission invoked a recent Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal No. 9987 of 2024 to underscore the constitutional nature of consumer rights: “Consumerism constitutes the very spirit of the Constitution… The rights of a consumer are not merely constitutional or statutory guarantees, but are in fact, natural and inalienable.”

 

Also Read: NCDRC Rules, Delay in Providing Complete Policy and Primary Coverage Documents Without Reason Amounts to Deficiency in Service

 

Recognizing the complainants as senior citizens entitled to a peaceful life, the Commission remarked: “Where a bar runs, quarrels run parallel. The complainants, senior citizens, will not be able to face such quarrels in their vicinity.”

 

Verdict

The Commission passed the following directions:

 

  • The opposite parties (Developers and Hospitality unit) are restrained from opening or permitting any restaurant-cum-bar or commercial establishment within the residential premises, including the badminton court and clubhouse areas of Experion Capital.

  • They are directed to pay ₹50,000 as litigation cost to the complainants within 30 days of the order.

 

Appearance

For The Complainant: Smt. Prema Sinha W/O. Shri H.C. Sinha [In-Person]

For The Opposite Party: Experion Developers Pvt Ltd [In-Person]

 

 

Cause Title: Smt. Prema Sinha & Anr. vs Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case No: Consumer Complaint No. SC/9/CC/25/2025

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Sushil Kumar [Judicial Member]

 

 

[Read/Download order]

Comment / Reply From