IMPORTANT POINT
Cause of action will continue till execution of Conveyance Deed.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—M/s. Dhruv Park, the complainant, is a Co-operative Group Housing Society. M/s. Dhruv Constructions (Promoter / Partnership Firm) is the OP1. OP1 entered into a Development Agreement with M/s. City Life Developers, OP2, for the development of the project known as, “Dhruv Park”, consisting of different residential buildings. As per the agreement, OP2 was to construct a Ground + 24 Floor Building with a height of 82.2 mts., known as ‘Agarwal Trinity Tower’ on the disputed land, situated at Plot bearing CTS No. 334-A, 360, 361, 362, 577 of Village Valnai at Malad (W), as per the MCGM Building Plan dated 25.02.2003. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure B.

2. In the year 2005, the OPs entered into an agreement for sale with the various flat purchasers in the said building, known as ‘Agarwal Trinity Tower’ and one of such agreement was executed with Mrs. Arunakshi S. Karkera. Copy of the said agreement for sale dated 24.06.2006 entered with Mrs. Arunakshi S. Karkera has been placed on record as Annexure C. The OPs handed over the possession of respective flats to various flat purchasers from March, 2008 onwards. A registered Society was formed on 04.12.2009 vide Annexure D, which is copy of registration of complainant’s Society. The complainants have pointed out the following deficiencies on the part of the OPs:-

A. First of all, the Conveyance Deed has not yet been executed. That was to be executed within six months from the registration of the Society, i.e., on or before 03.06.2010, as per the provisions of Section 11, read with Rule 9 of MOFA (Maharashtra Ownership of Flats) Act, 1963. Letter dated 28.07.2009 regarding the execution of the Conveyance Deed is annexed to the complaint as Annexure E.

B. There is complaint in respect of exterior open spaces around the building. These should be, minimum of 16 mts. As per Regulation 12 of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, the open space is not to be reduced by construction of a podium. However, the OPs have constructed a podium. The OPs, after acquiring the BMC approval, constructed a 28-Floor building of 82.2 mtrs height, along with the podium surrounding the building, utilizing the required exterior open space as per the model bye-laws and converting the space above and below the podium into parking slots.

C. There is absence of recreational grounds. There is no space for children to play. No space for gardening and no open space for recreational activities of all the 150 flat purchasers in the complainant’s building of 28-floors. The project is not yet complete. The construction work is going on. The recreational ground cannot be used for construction purposes. There is no place for parking the cars or the cars of the guests. The statutory requirement is that parking space meant for guests, relocating the parking slots from podium which is required to be open as per the bye-laws and the fire safety norms and 25% of the open space as per the Building Bye-laws and Development Control Regulation for Greater Bombay, 1991.

D. The parking spaces were sold in contravention of the agreement as per the provision of Rule 36 of the Development Control Regulation for Greater Bombay, 1991, promoter should provide 77 parkings, plus, 10% as guest parkings, totaling to be 85 only.

E. The next grouse of the complainant is that they were not provided the Club House and Swimming Pool facilities.

During arguments, it came to light that the Club House was ready, but the same was not open for the use of allottees, as certain taxes have to be paid and Occupation Certificate is to be obtained.

F. The question of Conveyance Deed is being delayed on the ground that Conveyance Deed will be given to the Federation of Entire Projects, after their full completion.

G. The other grievance of the complainant is that ‘Corpus Fund’ has not been given to them. Society was entitled to receive ‘corpus fund’ of Rs.35,20,000/- at the time of