SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(Bom) 122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Apte M.S, J.
Appellants: K.R. Agarwal
Vs.
Respondent: Balkrishna Jawar and Anr.
Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 592 of 1970 Decided On: 21.09.1971
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.P. Kanga, Adv. for N.H. Pardashani, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: G.N. Khare, Adv.
For State: S.C. Pratap, Asst. Government Pleader

The definition of "flat" under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 includes premises forming part of a building.

Headnote:

MAHARASHTRA OWNERSHIP FLATS ACT - FLAT - SECTION 2(A) - DEFINITION OF FLAT - PREMISES FORMING PART OF A BUILDING - WHETHER PREMISES SOLD BY THE ACCUSED TO THE COMPLAINANT SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEFINITION OF EXPRESSION "FLAT" AS CONTAINED IN THE ACT.

Fact of the Case:

The accused, who were brothers and were partners of a concern styled as M/s. Korbusiers, widely advertised a housing scheme which was called "Mini Land". It appears that the accused had acquired about 45, 831 Sq. yards of open plot of land from M/s. Orient Corporation on lease for a period of ninety-nine years with a renewal clause and they proposed to divide this land in different plots and offered housing accommodation in these plots. It appears the scheme was that on each plot accommodation consisting of ground - floor and two other floors was offered to each purchaser. It seems that one building was to be constructed on each plot, but that building was to be divided into four different buildings touching each other. Several persons purchased the housing accommodation in this Scheme and it is common ground that the accused actually constructed such buildings and even delivered possession to the purchaser. One of the terms of the agreement was to form a co - operative society promoted by the accused. The accused not having done that, the present complaint out of which this revision petition arises was filed by the petitioner who is one of the purchasers of one of the portions of a building called a bungalow type building. The number of the bungalow type accommodation given to him is 5 - B. The complainant alleged various breaches of the provisions of the Act by the Accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the premises sold by the accused to the complainant satisfied the requirements of the definition of expression "flat" as contained in the Act. The court observed that the premises were a separate and self contained set of premises, that they were intended to be used for residence, and that they formed part of a building.

Issues: Whether the premises sold by the accused to the complainant satisfied the requirements of the definition of expression "flat" as contained in the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the premises in question satisfied all the three tests of a flat within the meaning of the definition contained in the Act. The court observed that the premises were a separate and self contained set of premises, that they were intended to be used for residence, and that they formed part of a building.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order dismissing the complaint of the petitioner and sent the case back to the learned Magistrate to proceed with it according to law.

ORDER

1. This revision by the original complainant is directed against the order passed by the Presidency Magistrate 27th Court, Mulund, Greater Bombay dismissing the complaint filed by the Petitioner against respondent No. 1 and one V. K. Jawar, alleging offences under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on a preliminary ground that the premises in dispute were not covered by the Act, inasmuch as they were not a "flat" within the meaning of that term as defined in the Act.

2. Few facts which it is necessary to state for the purposes of this application , are these :

3.The accused, who are brothers and were partners of a concern styled as M/s. Korbusiers, widely advertised a housing scheme which was called "Mini Land". It appears that the accused had acquired about 45, 831 Sq. yards of open plot of land from M/s. Orient Corporation on lease for a period of ninety-nine years with a renewal clause and they proposed to divide this land in different plots and offered housing accommodation in these plots. It appears the scheme was that on each plot accommodation consisting of ground - floor and two other floors was offered to each purchaser. It seems that one building was to be constructed on each plot, but that building was to be divided into four different buildings touching each other. Several persons purchased the housing accommodation in this Scheme and it is common ground that the accused actually constructed such buildings and even delivered possession to the purchaser. One of the terms of the agreement was to form a co - operative society promoted by the accused. The accused not having done that, the present complaint out of which this revision petition arises was filed by the petitioner who is one of the purchasers of one of the portions of a building called a bungalow type building. The number of the bungalow type accommodation given to him is 5 - B. The complainant alleged various breaches of the provisions of the Act by the Accused.

4.The accused contended that the accommodation offered was an independent bungalow type accommodation and that each purchaser became absolute owner of the ground and two floors standing thereon, and that, therefore, it was not a flat within the meaning of that expression as defined in the Act. This contention was upheld by the learned Magistrate and he dismissed the complaint. The learned Magistrate, however, while dismissing the complaint, observed that since the premises in question wee not a "flat" under the Act, he had no jurisdiction to deal with them. It is difficult to follow this part of the reasoning of the learned Magistrate, because even assuming for a moment that the premises in dispute do not fall under the definition of a "flat" contained in the Act, that will not affect the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to deal with the complaint.

5. The only question that arises on this revision, therefore, is whether the premises, which were sold by the accused to the complainant satisfied the requirements of the definition of expression "flat" as contained in the Act. Clause (a) of Section 2 defines the expression "flat" as meaning a separate and self contained set of premises used or intended to be used for residence, or office, or show - room or shop or godown (and includes a garage) the premises forming part of a building and includes an apartment. In order that premises, therefore, should come under this definition, the following requirements must be fulfilled :-

1. the premises must be separate and self contained set of premises; and

2. must be such as can be used or intended to be used for residence, shop or Goodman or garage.

3. the premises must form part of a building.

6. It is not disputed in the present case that the first two requirements are satisfied. It is not denied that the premises in question are a separate and self contained set of premises







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top