The court affirmed that a unilateral deemed conveyance can be granted under MOFA despite ongoing litigation, as the statutory rights of flat purchasers are not extinguished by an auction sale.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

By this petition, Petitioner challenges Order dated 15 February 2024 passed by the Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies-(2), East Suburban, Mumbai (Competent Authority) granting unilateral deemed conveyance of land in favour of Respondent No.1-Society. Petitioner is an auction purchaser, who has purchased the land alongwith the building in the auction conducted by Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (MCGM) on account of failure on the part of the original landowners to pay property taxes. According to Petitioner, the land purchased by him through public auction cannot be conveyed to the Society, as the same would render the transaction of purchase futile. Petitioner's further contention is that Respondent-Society has already instituted a Civil Suit seeking declaration that the auction sale is void and during pendency of that suit, Order of deemed conveyance could not have been passed as the same tantamount to decree of the suit. The next objection of the Petitioner is that he has filed suit against the flat occupiers for their eviction under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which would be rendered infructuous on account of the order of deemed conveyance.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that a tenanted structure stood on a plot of land, which was earlier owned by Mr. Manilal Maneklal Parekh, who transferred the plot in favour of M/s. Chandrakant & Co. By Agreement dated 24 January 1985, said M/s. Chandrakant & Co. agreed to sell the plot to M/s. Prince Enterprises. Said M/s. Prince Enterprises entered into agreements with the tenants for redevelopment of the building and for providing them alternate accommodation in the newly constructed buildings. One such agreement entered into the erstwhile tenant on 4 February 1986 is placed on record at Exhibit-F to the petition. It appears that separate agreements were executed with persons who agreed to purchase flats available for sale in open market and one such agreement executed on 7 June 1990 is placed on record at Exhibit-G to the petition. This is how development on the plot was completed and erstwhile tenants, (who then became owners of flats) as well as new flat purchasers started occupying flats in the building in pursuance of Occupancy Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation on 30 June 1998 (part Occupancy Certificate) and 26 March 2002 (full Occupancy Certificate).

3. It appears that there were property tax dues in respect of the land in question and the structure standing thereon and MCGM decided to auction land and building. According to the Petitioner, the Notification for conduct of public auction was notified vide Notification issued on 3 January 2000. Accordingly, advertisements were issued in the local newspapers for auction of the land and the building for recovery of tax arrears. Petitioner participated in the public auction and was declared as highest bidder in the auction sale which was held on 9 March 2004. Petitioner paid purchase price of Rs. 6,82,500/- to the Municipal Corporation and accordingly letter dated 27 May 2004 was issued to Petitioner by MCGM confirming the sale and recognizing the right of the Petitioner to possess as well as to collect rent in respect of the purchased property. Similarly, communication was issued to the occupiers of the building on 27 May 2004 by the Municipal Corporation calling them upon to pay the dues of the premises in occupation of each occupier to the Petitioner from 8 April 2004 onwards. A Certificate of Sale came to be executed and registered in the name of the Petitioner on 21 January 2006. Petitioner's name was also entered into the property card in respect of the concerned land. Respondent No.5-M/s. Aniraj Enterprises who was claiming development rights in respect of the land had filed Writ Petition No. 2276 of 2004 challenging the auction, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 14 October 2004. The occupiers o