Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

 
15. Development Agreement dated 29.07.1986 is a primary document which needs to be looked into as to ascertain  what was agreed with the Promoter/Developer, namely, Mr. Vinayak Deshpande in respect of development and construction of the building in which the apartments sold to the Complainants are situated. Said Development Agreement categorically made it clear that development rights to construct the building, Shri Samartha Krupa" which consists of two apartments on each floor, viz, the ground floor, the first floor and the second floor were only given to Late Mr. Vinayak Deshpande. Garrage with attached toilet situated in one corner of the plot and the surrounding open space of the proposed building are exclusively retained for herself by the Opponent No.1, Smt. Sarojini Gangadhar Kulkarni.  Only access road to the said building was given from said open space. The Promoter/Developer late Mr. Vinayak Deshpande was to give ground floor two apartments to the Opponent No.1, Smt. Sarojini Gangadhar Kulkarni and he had right only to sell apartments (flats) situated on the first floor and the second floor of the building which are now recognized and described as apartments being No.101, 102, 201 ad 202 and which are sold to the Complainants,  Mr. Pravin G. Joshi and others as per their respective Agreements.  Clause (04) on internal page (03) and Condition No. (09) on internal page (05) of the Development Agreement dated 29.07.1986 clearly stipulates accordingly.  In this background, we have to look into the respective agreements with each one of the Complainants.  As submitted, these are similar agreements entered into with the Complainants and a copy of one such agreements dated 12.10.1987 entered into with the Complainant No.1, Mr. Pravin Joshi is placed on the record supra.  In the said agreement, the firm floated by Late Mr. Vinayak Deshpande, namely, the Opponent No.1, M/s. Gajanan Construction is shown as the Contractor/Builder and as a "Vendor" who agreed to sell Flats/Apartments to the Complainant Mr. Pravin Joshi.  Opponent No.1, Smt. Sarojini Gangadhar Kulkarni who is a "Lessee" of the Plot No. 29 on which the Building was to be constructed was shown as the "Consenting Party".  Specific reference is made therein while explaining source of authority of the "Vender" to the Development Agreement dated 29.07.1986, supra.  As to description of the Flat/Apartment agreed to be sold, it is specifically mentioned as Flat No.3 as shown in red ink in the map attached.  Further, referring to its clause (07) to (09), particularly Clause No. (09), it is revealed that the common areas in relation to each Flat does not extend by any stretch of imagination to surrounding open space from the Plot No.29 of the Building "Shri Samartha Krupta" and the garage situated in one of its corners except the approach road from the colony road to the building.  As per Clause (09), only the stair cases and the terrace of the Building are described as "common area".  Under the circumstances, per-se, since the property is now submitted to the provisions of the Act, the declaration made on 10.01.2005 by the Opponent No.1, Smt. Sarojini Gangadhar Kulkarni cannot be faulted with. Thus, the claim of the Complainants to surrounding open area except for the approach road to the building and the four two wheeler parking spaces described as per the said declaration, is devoid of any substance and they perhaps cannot complaint that the Promoter/Builder and for the purpose, the Opponent No.1, Smt. Sarojini Gangadhar Kulkarni committed deficiency in service by not allowing them to use said open space surrounding the plot.  We do not subscribe to the reasoning given by the Forum covering these aspects may, inference tried to be drawn covering these issues were perverse since not supported by the documents and the provisions of the law.  Therefore, the directions given as per impugned order subject to modification as per final order, are to be read in the light of the reasoning given by us."