Co-owners must be made parties and given hearing before Competent Authority grants unilateral deemed conveyance under MOFA Section 11; natural justice mandatory, no prejudice needed to prove where procedure statutorily requires it.

JUDGMENT :

NEELA GOKHALE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. The Petitioner assails Order dated 28^th May 2014 passed by the Respondent No. 2 - District Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies (3), Mumbai, ('Competent Authority') whereby the Deputy Registrar issued a Certificate, certifying the case of the Respondent No. 3 - Society, to be fit for enforcing the unilateral execution of a conveyance deed in its favour. The Deputy Registrar further directed the Society to submit a draft of transfer document of the subject property to the Competent Authority, in terms of the Certificate and further directed the Sub-Registrar of Assurances to transfer the right, title and interest of the Promoter, in the subject property in favour of the Society, after ascertaining the necessary stamp-duty to be paid, from the Collector of Stamps. The Petitioner has also sought cancellation of the Deed of Assignment and Transfer dated 5^th July 2014 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Andheri No. 3 under Serial No. BDR-9/5261 of 2014 dated 10^th July 2014.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

3.1 All that piece and parcel of land admeasuring approximately 677.90 sq.mtrs. of area, bearing Survey No.286, Hissa No.1 (Part), CTS No.521/2 of Village: Vile Parle (hereinbelow referred as ‘said property') was owned by Misquitta Family. The Petitioner is one of the beneficiaries of a share in the said property. The Respondent Nos. 6 to 11 also have their respective shares in the said property. The Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 6 to 11 are thus, co- owners of the said property. The Respondent No. 2 is the Competent Authority under Section 11 (3) of the MAHARASHTRA OWNERSHIP FLATS ACT (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 ('MOFA'). The Respondent No. 3 is the Society, who sought the Unilateral Deemed Conveyance Certificate. The Respondent No. 4 is a partnership firm, which claims to have been assigned a sub-lease by the Respondent No. 5(b). The Respondent Nos. 5(a) and 5(b) were partners of the partnership firm namely, M/s C.S. Enterprises, which was assigned the leasehold rights in the said property by the Petitioners. The Respondent No. 12 is the proprietor of a firm, with whom the Society has executed re-development agreement of the property. He is alleged to have connived with the Society in obtaining the impugned order.

3.2 By a registered lease deed dated 20^th June 1974, the Original Owners of the said property leased the said property in favour of the Respondent Nos. 5(a) and 5(b), who were at that time partners in the M/s. C.S. Enterprises. The lease was for a term of 98 years commencing from 1^st June 1974 but determinable and renewable, as provided in the lease deed. The lease rent was agreed to be Rs.1,000/- per month. Clause 4(a) of the lease deed declared the rights of the lessee to assign, mortgage, sub-lease and/or sub-divide the said property and their interest therein. It was specifically declared that no further consent was required of the lessors for the aforesaid. The owners however, retained reversion