The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of statutory provisions related to deemed conveyance and mandatory notice requirements under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

JUDGMENT :

In narrow compass, the facts leading to the writ petition and two civil revision applications, which are listed and argued before me can be succinctly set out as under :

2. The three proceedings involve property located at City Survey No. 112-A (1 to 5), Plot No. 5, in Mouza Panchpakadi Taluka and Sub Division Thane, admeasuring 648.85 sq. meters. The respondents in the proceedings, Smt. Suman Gaike asserts that she is the owner of the suit property, which is purchased by her along with her husband, who has predeceased. A building known as “Shivneri” was constructed on the said land, which comprised of 20 flats and the premises were let out to various tenants. It is her case that for some point of time, when her husband was alive and was away at native place, the tenants formed a Society titled as ‘Raigad Co-operative Housing Society Limited’ (refer to as “the Society”) on 7-9-1989. The building was in dilapidated condition and most of the tenants moved away. This constrained Suman Gaike to institute distinct civil suits before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane under the Bombay Rent Control Act, seeking eviction of tenants and payment of rent due and payable.

3. While this was the prevailing scenario, the Society preferred an application to respondent No. 2 – the Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (refer to as “the Competent Authority”) for grant of certificate of deemed conveyance under section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, wherein a claim was staked to the effect that Suman Gaike had entered into agreements for sale of flats with the individual purchasers as per section 4 of the MOFA and all agreements were duly registered as per law. It was alleged that though the owner had agreed to convey the suit premises to the Society within the agreed period in the agreement or four months from the formation of the Society, as provided in Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Rules, 1964 (referred to as “the Rules 1964”), there is a failure to execute the conveyance for conveying the right, title and interest of the promoter/owner in the land, which they are entitled to. The Society, therefore claimed entitled to have a certificate issued by the Competent Authority in the form of unilateral deemed conveyance under section 11 of the MOFA. It was alleged that though the notice was issued to the owner to grant conveyance, there is no compliance.

4. The said application, being Application No. 150 of 2016 preferred by the Society came to be rejected by the Competent Authority on 27-7-2017 on the purported reasoning that against the members of the applicant-Society, proceedings under the Rent Control Act are pending and, there is no stay operating in the same and the reason assigned is the sale agreements produced by the Society are not under the MOFA and, there is no propriety in conferring the right of the promoter/ownership in favour of the Society. Liberty was however granted to file fresh application on compliance of the existing shortfalls.

5. On 1-9-2017, another application was preferred, which was numbered as Application No.728 of 2017, by the Society reiterating that the members of the Society had purchased respective flats from Suman Gaike under the provisions of the MOFA and the Society is in possession of the property. The Competent Authority on 22-7-2017 deemed it expedient to grant the deemed conveyance by recording that the Society has complied with the deficiencies pointed out in the earlier order. It also recorded that the Society is registered in the year 1989 and since long time, they have been deprived of their right.

6. Being aggrieved by the deemed conveyance, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court, wherein she challenged the said order and on 16-7-2018, the petition was disposed o