Third-party purchasers cannot enforce rights against a society after the termination of the developer's agreement; their remedies lie solely with the developer.

JUDGMENT :

Kamal Khata, J.

1. These Appeals challenge the Order dated 4^th April 2024 passed by the Trial Court in Notice of Motion No. 282 of 2024 in S.C. Suit No. 98 of 2024, Notice of Motion No.229 of 2024 in S.C. Suit No.97 of 2023, Notice of Motion No.234 of 2024 in S.C. Suit No.3145 of 2023, Notice of Motion No.228 of 2024 in S.C. Suit No.101 of 2023, Notice of Motion No.233 of 2024 in S.C. Suit No.3146 of 2023, Notice of Motion No.230 of 2024 in S.C. Suit No.100 of 2023 and Notice of Motion No.232 of 2024 in S.C. Suit No.97 of 2023 whereby the Appellants’ Notice of Motions seeking interim reliefs came to be dismissed. By the said Notice of Motions, the Appellants had sought an interim injunction restraining Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, from carrying out any demolition or construction activity on the suit property without the express consent of the Appellants. The Appellants had further sought an injunction restraining the Respondents from modifying the sanctioned building plans of the under-construction building, and from selling, transferring or otherwise encumbering any of the flats in the new building proposed to be constructed on the suit property.

2. The Appellants are third-party flat purchasers in the redevelopment project initiated by Respondent No.2 – the Society - through Respondent No. 1, the erstwhile developer. The Respondent No. 2 – Society holds leasehold rights in land bearing Survey No. 229 & 267 and CTS No. 6 (part) and Mauje Kurla ‘III’ at Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East), Mumbai – 400024, within the Registration Sub-District of Bandra and District of Bombay City, admeasuring 739.31 square meters as per demarcation, together with a building standing thereon admeasuring 1019.47 square meters as per the conveyance deed. The suit land is leased by MHADA to Respondent No.2 under a registered Indenture of Lease dated 24^th June 1991.

3. These Appeals raise the question whether third-party flat purchasers – who derive their rights through a developer whose appointment by the Society has been eventually terminated, and whose termination is confirmed by the Arbitrator - can assert or enforce any right, title or interest in the Society’s property or its redevelopment project through a new developer.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants and Respondents submit that these Appeals can be disposed of by a common order. Having heard the rival submissions of both Counsel and upon perusing the record, I proceed to dispose of the Appeal finally.

Whether Society qualifies as a “Promoter”:

5. The Appellants argue that since the Society, being the owner of the plot, had executed a Development Agreement with the erstwhile developer for redevelopment of its property, it therefore qualifies as a ‘Promoter’ within the meaning of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (“MOFA”).

Distinguishing previous decisions:

6. It is argued that Vaidehi Akash Housing Private Limited, [2014 SCC OnLine Bom 5068] is clearly distinguishable. The learned Single Judge therein was dealing with a Notice of Motion in a pending suit and made only prima facie observations regarding the obligations of the Society under MOFA. The Court held merely prima facie that there was no basis to treat the Society as a ‘Promoter’ or to foist upon it promoter-level obligations vis-a-vis the purchasers. It was also observed that, prima facie the purchasers had no right to seek specific performance of their individual agreements against the Society. The order, being interim in nature, did not finally adjudicate rights of the parties and was conf