The main legal point established is that construction in violation of MOFA and Development Control Regulations cannot be protected, and delay does not disentitle plaintiffs from seeking relief.

JUDGMENT - REBELLO F.I., J.:---The appellants herein have preferred this Appeal against the order dated 19-12-2001, whereby a learned Judge of the City Civil Court dismissed Notice of Motion No. 2932 of 2001 in S.C. Suit No. 3752 of 2001, taken out by the appellants herein. The learned Judge found in favour of the appellants that the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA) was applicable. The learned Judge also found in favour of the appellants that the new structure is an extension to the old building Pushpa Castle. However, on the ground of balance of convenience considering the delay in the plaintiffs approaching the Court, dismissed their motion. It is that order which is the subject matter of the present appeal.

2. In this appeal, motion for interim relief was taken out on 25-9-2002 and an order was passed that pending hearing and final disposal of appeal there would be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (a) of Civil Application No. 1063/2002. The order also sets out that issue of re-construction and demolition of structure, can be considered when the appeal is heard. A statement made on behalf of the counsel appearing for the respondents that the compound wall had been demolished, was recorded. The petitioner was directed to maintain status quo as of that day. The matter was heard and placed for orders.

3. The plaintiffs in the plaint have described themselves as flat purchasers in the building constructed by defendant No. 1 M/s. Bhavan Corporation. Defendant No. 2 had been sued as defendant who is putting up the construction of the building which is the subject matter of the present suit. It is averred that construction of the building has been started and commenced by the defendant No. 2 and other defendants jointly with one another. The plaintiffs have averred that their building Pushpa Castle was constructed on Sub Plot G-4 of land bearing Survey No. 41, CTS No. 626. The building constructed consists of stilt + 7 floors. There is one Sandeep Gaiwal, who is an officer with the Bombay Municipal Corporation. He is occupying Flat No. 701. There are several allegations which are not necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. Work in the plaintiffs structure was commenced in 1991-92 and completed in 1993. The plaintiffs are occupying the flats ever since they were put in possession thereof.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendants commenced the construction of the new building touching the old building in and around August 2000. It is the case of the plaintiffs that structure under construction appears to be an extension of the existing structure occupied by the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the new construction appears to be stilt plus 22 floors. The stage of the construction of the new building was upto 11-12 floors.

The case of the plaintiffs is that suit is filed under the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act whereunder the defendants are liable under the statutory obligations to form and register a society and to convey the property to the flat purchasers, which the defendants have failed to do so. The defendants have failed and neglected to give copies of the sanctioned plans, I.O.D. C.C. and hand over the management and administration of the building occupied by the plaintiffs to the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have deliberately avoided to do so, as the defendants are admittedly interested in putting up additional construction and selling away the same. The construction being put up according to the plaintiffs contentions, is without their consent; express or otherwise. None of the plaintiffs have ever given consent to the same. The construction thus is contrary to the provisions of section 7 of the MOFA Act. It is also averred that the construction is contrary to the Rules and bye-laws of the Corporation. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the work undertaken by the defendants has commenced in such

Click Here to Read the rest of this document