( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) ADMIT.

( 3 ) MR. CLIVE Dsouza waives notice for respondent nos. 1 to 10. None appears for the respondent No. 11. Ms. Musle waives notice for respondent No. 12. The contesting respondents are respondent Nos. 1 to 10 who had filed the suit. The respondent No. 11 has not appeared even before the lower court. In the circumstances, as contesting parties are before the court, by consent, appeal is taken up for final disposal, as short question is involved.

( 4 ) THIS appeal from order takes exception to the judgment and Order passed by the City Civil Court, bombay dated 27th October, 2005 in Notice of Motion no. 1436 of 2004 in S. C. Suit No. 1795 of 2004. In the said suit respondent Nos. 1 to 10 took out Notice of motion No. 1436 of 2004 for temporary injunction. That Notice of Motion has been allowed in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and against the appellants herein. The basis on which interim relief was sought by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 10 is that they have purhcased flat in the building known as alexander Heights situated on the Plot No. 263, st. Anthonys Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071, some time back. They have now come to know that the appellants intend to construct another building abutting the alexander Height in which the respondents/plaintiffs have purchased flats and have started occupying the said flats. It is their case that as they have already occupied their respective flats in Alexander heights in 1992, the appellants cannot be permitted to construct new building abutting Alexander Heights in absence of approval given by the respondents/plaintiffs in that behalf. This is the main reason, which weighed with the trial Court to answer the issue in favour of the respondents/- plaintiffs and against appellants/plaintiffs. The trial Judge has adverted to Section 7 (1) of maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and transfer) Act, 1963 and decision of this court in the case of Ravindra Mutenja vs. M/s. Bhavan Corporation reported in 2003 (3) All M. R. 521 to answer the issue against the appellants.

( 5 ) THE argument of the appellants before this court is that Section 7 (1) has no application to the fact situation of the present case. This is so because rigours of section 7 (1) will apply only in relation to the alteration in the structure of the building in which plaintiffs have purchased flats and are occupying the same, namely, Alexander Heights and not to the case on hand where the appellants intend to construct new building in accordance with the requirements of Municipal law after obtaining sanction from the appropriate authority in that behalf. For construction of such building, no prior permission of the flat purchasers of previously constructed building will be required as it is neither extension or alteration of Alexander Heights as such. However, the respondents/plaintiffs would rely on the reported decision of this Court in ravindra Mutenja (Supra) to contend that even with regard to the proposed construction of new building which is independent of the structure occupied by the flat owners, it is imperative to seek prior permission of the plaintiffs. This submission has been countered by the counsel for the appellants relying on the unreported decision of the Division bench of our High Court in the case of Mr. Sudhir shetty and Anr. V/s. Mr. Dharma V. . Desle dated 2nd december, 2003 in Appeal No. 844 of 2003. The division Bench with reference to the purport of section 7a of the Act, 1963 has observed in paragraph-6 of this decision that no permission from flat purchaser was necessary when the building in which the flats of the purchasers are situated, no alteration, variation or change is being effected by the developer. In other words, the counsel for the appellants has pressed into service Section 7a to contend that on account of section 7a it was open to the appellants to construct additional build

Click Here to Read the rest of this document