High Court of Judicature at Bombay
ROSHAN DALVI
Ratna Rupal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
Versus
Rupal Builders & Others
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2327 OF 2000 IN SUIT NO. 3323 OF 2000
Decided on : 27-06-2011
MOFA - Compliance of Statutory Obligations - Sections 7, 7A, 10, 11, Rule 9 - The court discussed the statutory obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA) and emphasized the rights and obligations of the developers and flat purchasers. It highlighted the requirement of consent for additional construction, the obligation to execute conveyance within the prescribed period, and the implications of non-compliance with statutory duties.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff sought compliance with statutory obligations under MOFA by the Defendants, including executing the deed of conveyance and restraining additional construction. The Defendants failed to execute the conveyance within the prescribed period and sought to put up further construction on the suit plot.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Defendants failed in their statutory duties and sought to put up further construction without the necessary consent. It emphasized the rights and obligations of the developers and flat purchasers under MOFA.
Issues: 1. Enforcement of rights under unregistered agreements. 2. Non-joinder of necessary parties. 3. Entitlement to carry out additional construction without consent. 4. Plaintiff's entitlement to object to additional construction. 5. Defendants' obligation to convey the entire plot. 6. Relief entitled to the Plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of consent for additional construction, the obligation to execute conveyance within the prescribed period, and the implications of non-compliance with statutory duties under MOFA.
Final Decision: The Notice of Motion was made absolute in favor of the Plaintiff, and the suit was adjourned for further case management directions.
1. The Plaintiff has sued for compliance of the statutory obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulations of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) by the Defendants. The specific statutory obligation claimed by the Plaintiff is executing the deed of conveyance in favour of the Plaintiff Society for the plot of land which came to be developed by the Defendants and under which development the Plaintiff’s building came to be constructed and the Plaintiff’s members, as the flat purchasers, came to be put in possession and occupation of the flats agreed to be purchased by them.
2. The Defendants sought to put up additional construction. They sought to consume further FSI which came to be available on the suit plot pursuant to amendment of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 (DC Rules). The Defendants sought to have the plans of the Plaintiff’s plot of land amended. The Plaintiff sought to restrain the Defendants from doing so. So far the amended plans have not been submitted and further construction has not been put up.
3. This Notice of Motion is for the mandatory injunction to comply with the statutory obligation of executing the deed of conveyance as per Section 11 of MOFA and the prohibitory injunction against the Defendants entering upon the suit plot and developing it by putting up additional construction by consuming additional FSI.
4. The members of the Plaintiff as the flat purchasers entered into agreements with the Defendants in around 1975.
Under Clause 1 of the agreement the Defendants stated that they were constructing the building on the suit plot “in accordance with plans approved by the “Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay” (MMC). The specifications were kept at the building site for inspection. The clause stated that the flat purchasers as the buyers had seen and approved .......... (it is not stated what was approved).
Under Clause 5 of the said agreement the flat purchasers were shown not to have right, title or interest over the land or building until the conveyance was executed. Under clause 6 of the agreement the flat purchasers would have no claim except the premises acquired by them, other amenities in the building such as open space, parking space, lobbies, staircase, lifts and terrace would remain the property of the Developers until the property was transferred, which was subject to the rights of the Developers.
Under Clause 7 of the agreement the Developer had the right until execution of the conveyance in favour of the Society to make additions, raise storeys or put additional structures as permitted by the MMC and competent authority. Such additional structures were to be their sole properties.
5. It is settled law that agreements between the flat purchasers and the Developers are required to be in accordance with the statutory provisions contained in MOFA and the model agreement. The clauses which give the rights of the parties and agreement of the kind executed by and between the flat purchasers in the Plaintiff Society and the Developers cannot be inconsistent with or in derogation of the statutory provisions under MOFA. Any clause in any agreement by any flat purchasers or the developer which is inconsistent with or against the mandate of the statute would be, to that extent void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act being against the provisions of MOFA and against public policy reflected therein. The reliance upon them it completely in vain.
6. The statutory provisions are, therefore, to be examined.
(a). Under Section 7 of MOFA the Developer can make no alterations or additions in the structures in respect of which the flats were constructed without the consent of the flat purchasers after plans and specifications were disclosed. Needless to say that the plans must be sanctioned plans and not draft plans.
(b). Under Section 7A, which an exception to Section 7, it has been clarified that the construction of add
Shailaja Kamalakar Limaye Vs. Nilkanth Ganesh Pethe 2010 (4) Mh.L.J. 160
White Towers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. S.K. Builders & Ors. (2008) 6 Bom.C.R. 371
Bajranglal Eriwal & Ors. Vs. Sagarmal Chunilal & Ors. (2008) 6 Bom.C.R. 887
Manratna Developers Vs. Megh Ratan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 2009 (2) Mh.L.J. 115
M/s. Jayantilal Investments Vs. Madhuvihar Cooperative Housing Society (2007) 9 SCC 220
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.