SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Bom) 395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
MILIND N.JADHAV, J.
M/s. Asian Chemical Industries - Petitioner
Versus
Vijay Kailas Industrial Premises CHS Ltd. And Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11164 of 2024
Decided On : 11-02-2026

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate, a/w Ms. Priyanka Chadda, D.K. Shukla i/b Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Dushyant Pagare a/w Ms. Shubashree Yewale, Advocates Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat i/b Ms. Aditi S. Naikare, Advocates Mr. P.J. Gavhane, A.G.P.

Subsisting leasehold rights in land and ownership of superstructure preclude deemed conveyance to tenants' society under MOFA without extinguishment proof, valid Section 4 agreements and proper documents; fraud via forged deeds, wrong plans vitiates grant.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1960 - Sections 11, 4, 2(c) - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 111, 114, 119 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 - Doctrine of dual ownership whereby owner of land is not automatically owner of structure thereon; subsisting leasehold rights in land held by lessee who owns superstructure let to tenants constitute encumbrance precluding unilateral deemed conveyance to society formed by tenants - Deemed conveyance requires valid agreements for sale per Section 4, commencement certificate, approved building plans and architect certificate for relevant structure; absence or defects (discrepant registration stamps indicating forgery, submission of plans for adjacent plot) render order perverse, illegal and vitiated by fraud. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17)

(B) Eviction suit withdrawal without surrender deed or court decree does not extinguish lessee's rights; tenants remain sub-tenants without ownership conversion absent compliant agreements or termination proof - Unregistered conveyances lack validity; inconsistent stands and afterthought documents evidence mala fides. (Paras 10, 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
Leasehold rights in land assigned to petitioner who constructed multi-storey structure let to tenants on monthly basis; assessed for property tax in petitioner's name. Tenants formed society, claimed conveyances from landowner, applied for deemed conveyance submitting defective documents including discrepant deed, wrong building plan for adjacent plot, absent commencement certificate. Authority granted certificate ignoring encumbrances.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order quashed and set aside; unilateral deemed conveyance certificate cancelled; all consequential actions quashed.

Issues: Whether competent authority erred in granting deemed conveyance certificate despite subsisting leasehold and superstructure ownership rights, fraudulent documents and non-compliance with statutory prerequisites.

Ratio Decidendi: Doctrine of dual ownership applies; no proof of rights extinguishment; documents prima facie forged with discrepant stamps, incorrect plans; no Section 4 compliant agreements by structure owner; authority failed to consider encumbrances and deficiencies rendering order unsustainable.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. lease assigned; petitioner owns structures on land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. subsisting lease rights; society misrepresented facts. (Para 4)
3. lease terminated; conveyances convert tenancy to ownership. (Para 5)
4. no promoter under mofa; documents fabricated. (Para 6)
5. dual ownership doctrine; lease subsists post-compromise. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
6. irregular stamps prove document fabrication and fraud. (Para 12 , 18 , 19)
7. mofa sec.4, cc, plans non-compliant. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
8. deemed conveyance quashed for fraud, lapses. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Pagare, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1; Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3 and Mr. Gavhane, learned AGP for Respondent No.7 – State. By consent, Writ Petition is heard and disposed of finally.

2. Petition is filed challenging impugned Order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (for short "Respondent No.2") granting Certificate of Unilateral Deemed Conveyance under Section 11 of MAHARASHTRA OWNERSHIP OF FLATS ACT , 1960 (for short “MOFA”) to Respondent No. 1 – Society.

3. Briefly stated, in or about 1950, one Shri. Amrutlal G. Sonawala, (for short “Original Owner”) was the absolute owner of plot bearing Survey Nos. 111, 112 and 125 corresponding to CTS No. 498, 498/1 to 8, Revenue Village - Aksar Pahadi, Borivali, Mumbai. By Indenture of Lease dated 08.05.1963, Original Owner leased plot of land bearing CTS No. 498A, 498/1 to 3, Village Aksar Pahadi, Borivali, Mumbai (for short “subject land”) to Respondent No. 4. On or about 31.12.1964, Respondent No. 4 agreed to transfer and assign lease of subject land to Petitioner to construct certain structures. Petitioner constructed a ground plus two storey structure on subject land. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short “MCGM”) assessed the structure for property tax and bill was issued for the same.

3.1. On 24.08.1966, Respondent No. 4 entered into registered Deed of Assignment with Petitioner to assign remainder leasehold rights in the subject land and ownership right in the structures constructed thereon to Petitioner. Between 1966 to 1967 Petitioner let out the Units constructed in the ground plus 2 storey structure standing on the subject land to tenants (members of Respondent No.1 Society) on tenancy basis. Thereafter in or about 1976, Original Owner submitted proposal along with building plan to MCGM to construct a ground plus one storey structure on adjacent land bearing old CTS No.498 (Part) and new CTS No.498B however the same was not approved.

3.2. In 1985, Original Owner filed RAE & R Suit No. 398/1217 of 1985 in the Small Causes Court to evict Petitioner and its tenants, however during pendency of aforementioned suit, Original Owner expired and his legal heirs were brought on record and thereafter due to compromise between parties the suit was withdrawn by the legal heir/s of the Original Owner.

3.3. In 2009, Respondent No. 3 i.e. son of Original Owner executed unregistered Deed of Conveyance dated 29.08.2009 with respect to subject land in favour of proposed Respondent No.1 Society. Respondent No.3 executed individual Deeds of Conveyance in favour of all tenants directly to transfer ownership of their respective Units and one such Deed of Conveyance dated 25.03.2010 executed with one tenant viz; M/s. Kundan Industries transferring ownership of Unit / Gala No.3 is relied upon and appended to the present Petition.

3.4. On 11.04.2014, Respondent No. 1 - Society was formed and duly registered by the tenants. On 21.08.2023, Respondent No. 1 – Society filed Application No. 109 of 2023 under Section 11 (3) of MOFA seeking Unilateral Deemed Conveyance Certificate before Respondent No.2 in respect of the subject land and the two standing structures thereon. On 20.03.2024, Respondent No.2 allowed the aforementioned application and issued Unilateral

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top