The seller's failure to provide legal property documentation constitutes deficiency in service under consumer protection laws.

JUDGMENT

(09-07-2025)

Per: Hon’ble Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member

1. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed by the Complainant, seeking redressal for alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties who sold him a premises which has subsequently been declared as unauthorised construction by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). Brief facts of the case is as follows :

2. The Complainant, an Indian inhabitant residing at Godown Stilt No. ‘A’, Ground Floor, A-Wing, Shiv Darshan Building, Malpani Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400092, contended that he purchased the said premises from the Opposite Parties by executing a duly registered Agreement for Sale dated 31.08.2005 for a consideration of ₹1,51,000/-. The premises was described as a godown measuring approximately 450 square feet situated in the stilt portion of the building. The Complainant received possession of the premises on 30.08.2005 through a possession letter issued by the builder. The said premises has been in exclusive use and occupation of the Complainant ever since, and he claims to have paid all requisite municipal taxes, society maintenance charges, and utility bills.

3. The Complainant further contended that the building was developed by the Opposite Parties under a project launched on the land bearing CTS No. 2 of Village Kandivali, Taluka Borivali, and advertised under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA). Trusting the representations of the builder that the construction was as per sanctioned plan and fully legal, the Complainant executed the purchase agreement and began using the premises as the sole location for storage and distribution of consumer goods.

4. However, much to his shock, the Complainant was issued a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act by the Assistant Commissioner of the R/C Ward on 22.02.2006, alleging that the said godown constituted unauthorized construction, and he was directed to remove the same. Despite submitting a detailed reply dated 23.02.2006 asserting his lawful ownership and pointing out that he had purchased the premises from the builder through a registered agreement, the demolition order dated 02.08.2006 was passed.

5. Faced with imminent demolition, the Complainant filed L.C. Suit No. 3671 of 2006 before the City Civil Court, Mumbai, against the MCGM and the builder, seeking relief against the demolition order. The said suit was dismissed on 08.04.2011. It is further alleged by the complainant that in the judgment of the Civil Court it was specifically recorded in findings against the builder (Opponent No. 1 herein) and directed the MCGM to blacklist the builder in perpetuity for his role in selling an unauthorised structure.

6. The Complainant had earlier filed First Appeal No. 889 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court challenging the dismissal of L.C. Suit No. 3671 of 2006. The Hon’ble High Court, by its order dated 20.04.2011, was pleased to grant interim relief, directing both parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit premises. Thereafter, the said appeal came to be finally dismissed on 09.01.2014, and the order of the City Civil Court was confirmed.

7. Being aggrieved, the Complainant then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was also disposed of on 13.05.2014 without any interference. The Complainant has placed all these pleadings to show that although the civil courts decided the issue regarding legality of the structure under municipa