Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

.1. The plaintiff No. 1 claims to be an Association of the occupants of Guru Ram Das Bhawan constructed by the defendant at Plots No. A3 & A4, Community Centre, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi. The plaintiffs No. 2 & 3 are the President and the Secretary of the plaintiff No. 1 Association. The record reveals that the Delhi Municipal Corporation on 11th March, 1979 held a public auction in respect of perpetual lease hold rights of the aforesaid plots of land and the bid of the defendant was highest and was accepted and the defendant was put into possession of the said land on 19th July, 1979. The defendant constructed on the aforesaid plots of land a Multi Storeyed Building with a number of offices, flats, shops and godowns. The said building was named ‘Guru Ram Das Bhawan’. The defendant entered into separate agreements with different persons regarding the offices/flats/shops/godowns in the said building and agreed to sell the offices/flats/shops/godowns in the said building to the said purchasers on the terms and conditions contained therein.

.2. As per the documents on record, it was inter alia agreed between the defendant and the purchasers of the different offices/flats/shops/godowns in the said building that possession will be delivered after full payment; that upon receipt of requisite permission from the DDA/MCD for the sale of the flat to the buyer, the defendant shall complete the sale and effect the conveyance of the flat to the buyer in such manner as may be permissible; that the buyer upon sale and delivery of possession will be entitled to use and occupation of the flat without any interference or hindrance but subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement: that the buyer shall however have no right of the plots of land or to any portion of the building other than the office/flat/shop/godown be sold to it/him/her; that at an appropriate time of which the defendant was to be the judge, the defendant shall promote a Limited Company, Cooperative Society or some other Body Corporate of the buyers, to take over from the defendant the ownership right in the land and the structure thereon and to take the responsibility for the preservation and maintenance of the building and for the operation of common services thereon; that the buyers had agreed and undertaken to be a member of such Limited Company or Cooperative Society or Body Corporate to be so formed; that till the transfer to such Body Corporate or Cooperative Society, the defendant shall have the right to make additions, raise additional structure as may be permitted, over the building; the buyer agreed and bound itself to pay to the defendant or to the proposed Limited Company or Body Corporate or Cooperative Society his proportionate share of all taxes, Ground rent, insurance premium, water charges, salaries of persons appointed by the defendant or by such Body Corporate/Cooperative Society for the purposes of preservation and maintenance of the property and for the provision of common services in the property; that the buyer also agreed to deposit an amount by way of security and which on the formation of the Body Corporate/Cooperative Society was to be transferred thereto; the buyer also agreed to contribute to a fund called the Sinking Fund for replacement of capital equipment like elevator, pumping sets, electrical cables in the building form time to time. The agreement also provides for insurance of the building, maintenance, restrictions on use, etc. but all of which are not relevant herein. Clause 32 (b) however provides if the Cooperative Society or Body Corporate is not formed for any reason whatsoever, then the defendant may transfer and assign the building to the purchasers of flats/shops/godowns in the said building with each of them having a share therein in proportion to the price paid by him/her to the total price of all the flats/shops/godowns etc.

3. The plaintiffs instituted this suit averring that the buyers/allo