Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Jahagirdar, J, referred to the decision of V.A. Naik, J., rendered on 24th October, 1966, the decision of Apte. J., rendered on 29th June, 1976 and the decision of R.L Aggarwal, J., rendered on February 9, 1983. After referring the Division Bench decision, Jahagirdar. J., observed, thus, at page 107 :

"This unauthorised construction, if it has already been made before the possession is given, will be completely covered by the provisions of section 7(2) of the Ownership Flats Act. If, however, the unauthorised construction is made or is being made after the possession has been given, then, in my opinion, the provisions of section 7(2) will not be applicable because, as already mentioned above and it is worth repeating, section 7(2) will apply only to a situation where the possession of completed structure is given to the flat owners or to the body corporate, as the case may be. In all these cases, therefore, where after giving the possession, the promoter has ventured to, with or without the sanction of the Municipal Corporation, construct a new building or a new structure which is not warranted by the promises contained in the agreement with the flat purchasers, obviously there is a contravention of section 7(1) of the Ownership Flats Act. At the same time since it is unauthorised construction which is not covered by the provisions of section 7(2), the authority under section 7(2) will naturally not have jurisdiction to entertain any complaint from the flat owners in respect of the same. A contravention of section 7(1) of the Ownership Flats Act gives rise to a cause of action to the plaintiffs' in each of these cases and since this cause of action is not within, the Jurisdiction, let alone the exclusive jurisdiction of the authority mentioned under section 7(2), the plaintiffs' remedy is only in the Civil Court. The contravention of section 7(1) of the Ownership Flats Act gives a cause of action because any construction carried on by the promoter which is not in accordance with the plans and specifications of the building on the basis of which the flat owners agreed to purchase the flats will be an unauthorised construction A negative obligation placed upon the promoter by section 7, if broken, must necessarily give rise to a civil cause of action, though it has not been a penal offence under the provisions of this Act I do not see how when such a cause of action arises, the Civil Court can be said to have no Jurisdiction to bear and decide the same. It is only when the defect in the building or material of a flat or a building of which possession is given or when possession of a structure is given which is found to be unauthorised, that the question of initiating a process for the purpose of rectification of the defect or of obtaining the compensation as outlined in section 7(2) can be started and that also in respect of the properties of which possession has been given. It is clear, therefore, that when the promoter is proceeding to make alterations or additional structures which are in contravention of section 7(1), he is liable to be proceeded against in a Civil Court which alone has got jurisdiction."