JUDGMENT :

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. These Appeals have been preferred against the Judgment dated 10th September, 2009 (the impugned Judgment) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the captioned Suit filed by Dr. Arun Subrao Prabhu (Original Plaintiff)-hereinafter referred to as the ‘flat purchaser’ (the impugned Judgment). Appeal No. 523 of 2009 has been preferred by the Appellant-Rizvi Builders (Original Defendant No. 1 in the captioned Suit)-hereinafter referred to as the developer. Appeal No. 524 of 2009 has been preferred by the Original Defendant Nos. 2 and 3-M.M. Gulabani and Pushpa M. Gulabani in the captioned Suit hereinafter referred to as the Gulabanis. The flat purchaser is the Respondent No. 1 in both the above Appeals.

2. Prayer clauses (a), (ai) and (b) in the Suit are reproduced hereunder:

“(a) That it be declared that the Agreement for Sale dated 6th March, 1980 between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, is valid, subsisting and binding on the Defendants.

(ai) That it be declared that the said Agreement for Sale dated 4th April, 1988 between the first Defendants and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is sheer bogus, invalid and not enforceable in law and not binding on the Plaintiff.

(b) That the Defendants be ordered and decreed to specifically perform the said agreement mentioned in prayer (a) above.”

3. By the impugned Judgment, the captioned Suit was decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (ai) and (b) of the Plaint, subject to the condition that the flat purchaser shall within a period of four weeks deposit the balance consideration payable under the agreement i.e. Rs. 1.44 Lakhs with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. Further that the developer and the Gulabanis shall execute a Deed of Transfer within four weeks of deposit of the balance consideration.

4. Certain germane facts are set out as under:

4.1 On 6th March, 1980 the flat purchaser had entered into an agreement with the developer, by which the flat purchaser agreed to purchase a residential flat i.e. Flat No. 104 in the building which the developer was to construct on the suit property (‘the suit flat’) at and for a consideration of Rs. 1.80 Lakhs.

4.2 Clause 4 of the Agreement noted that the old structures standing on the land were tenanted and it was necessary for the developer to settle with the tenants.

4.3 Consequently, the development of the land was dependent on cooperation of the tenants of the building and the developers entered into a settlement with them.

4.4 Subject to this, Clause 5 of the Agreement provided that the flat purchaser was purchasing the residential premises comprised in Flat No. 104 on the first Floor.

4.5 Clause 6 of the agreement, stipulated that the flat purchaser has paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- prior to the execution of the agreement and the balance linked with the casting of slabs by the developer; the payment being required to be made within 10 days of a notice in writing by the developer.

4.6 Further, clause 28 provided that the flat purchaser agreed to pay all the amounts due under the Agreement when they fell due and time was of the essence. Furthermore, as per Clause 28, the developer was not bound to give notice requiring payment and its failure to do so would not be treated as an excuse for non-payment.

4.7 On 13th March, 1980 the flat purchaser made a further payment of Rs. 31,000/- in accordance with clause 6 of the agreement which was to be followed by payment of the remaining installments linked to casting of slabs.

4.8 Between 1980 and October, 1987, construction of the building did not commence. The case of the developer is that the construction of the building commenced in October, 1987.

4.9 On 3rd June, 1987, the flat purchaser addressed a letter to the developer reiterating that the payment of the balance amount was due slab wise within ten days of a notice in writing calling for payment; however, the flat purchaser had not received any letters from the developer presumably because there was no progr