Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is alleged that after formation and registration of the Co-operative Housing Society, opponents were requested and called upon to execute conveyance deed of the property of complainant society. Repeated requests were made. The members of the complainant society while executing agreement of purchase of respective flats have not only agreed to purchase their respective flats but also have agreed to purchase open space available to their respective flats and building. They have right to purchase open space adjacent to their building. Open space adjacent to the building belongs to complainant society. However, opponents are trying to allot open space available to the complainant society to other flat holders with an 4 (A/15/52) intention to construct another building. Therefore, the opponents are deliberately delaying to execute conveyance deed of the property of complainant society. It is the statutory obligation of the builder to hand over copy of agreement of sale, copy of sanctioned plan, Designs and Specifications prepared by architect, copy of occupation certificate and Layout plan of the building. Opponents have not complied the statutory mandatory compliances. Therefore, the opponents are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Ultimately, the complainant society has filed consumer complaint to direct the opponents to execute conveyance deed of the property of complainant society, to handover occupancy certificate and to carry out mandatory compliances. The complainant society has also claimed compensation for delay on the part of the opponents to execute the conveyance deed and claimed costs of the litigation.

[3] Opponents have resisted the complaint by filing written version and denied all the adverse allegations. It is specifically denied that the opponents are guilty of deficiency in service. It is submitted that the Ld.District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Complainant is a Co-operative Housing Society. It does not come within the definition of 'consumer'. It is denied that the opponents deliberately delayed conveyance of property of complainant society with intention to defeat the rights of members of complainant society. Complainant society has not produced agreements of flat holders. In absence of agreements, title of the flat purchasers cannot be determined. Absolutely, there was no co- operation from the flat purchasers for production of necessary documents. It is obligatory on the part of builder/developer to execute conveyance in respect of the property of complainant society as per the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. The conveyance of the property cannot go beyond the terms of agreements duly entered into between respective flat holders. Complainant society is claiming relief of conveyance wants more area and claims title over the property under the 5 (A/15/52) guise of open space. It is not possible for the opponents to execute conveyance deed of the proper as per the whims and fancy of the complainant. According to the opponents the entire layout also contains several building/structure and the project of the opponent is incomplete. Therefore, conveyance certificate for partial property or partial compliance of construction as claimed by the complainant is not possible. For the same ground opponents are not in position to give occupancy certificate. Further, the project of the opponents was redevelopment in which the tenants were not granted authority to avail F.S.I. and to obtain the addition T.D.R. Therefore, according to the opponents there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part. As such, the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

[12] It is admitted position that building of complainant society is standing on the C.T.S.No.32 of Gandhi Nagar. On the said plot of land, building 'A' Wing of another Bhawani Tower Co-operative Housing Society is situated. It is adjacent to the complainant society. Two buildings are constructed in the year 1984. Both the buildings are having basement plus 13 floors. Ld.Counsel Shri.Prabhavalkar has drawn our attention to the Agreement for Sale executed in favour of the flat holders. Area of the land of plot of two buildings as per the Agreement for Sale of respective flat holders of complainant society is shown 4538 square yard equivalent to 3798.40 sq.mtrs. It is an admitted position that co-operative housing society of 'A' Wing was registered on 05/12/1985. In view of provisions of section 11 and Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 it is obligatory on the part of the builder/developer to execute the conveyance deed within four months from the registration of co-operative housing society. Admittedly, complainant co-operative Housing Society is registered on 09/08/1999. It is not disputed that the opponents were recovering money for water taxes, performance of agreement, maintenance charges, share and 11 (A/15/52) entrance fees and charges for formation of society and stamp duty though the agreement for sale was totally silent to that effect. Respondent/opponent did not bother to execute the conveyance deed of property of complainant society till the complaint was filed by the complainant society. In spite of provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 and repeated requests, respondent/opponents did not think it necessary to execute conveyance deed. Ld.District Forum rightly observed that there is inordinate delay to fulfill the mandatory compliances. [13] Ld.Counsel Shri.Malhotra vehemently urged that the flat purchasers who are the members of complainant society while purchasing the flats not only purchased the flats but also purchased undivided open space in the property adjacent to the property. It is harped upon that respondent intentionally avoided to execute conveyance deed in favour of the society although they were duty-bound to execute the conveyance deed within four months after formation of society. Further it is submitted that since the open space around the suit property become the property of complainant, opponent cannot carry out any construction without the consent of flat purchasers.

[15] Ld.Counsel Shri.Malhotra for the appellant urged that if open space is not provided to the appellant/complainant society, the flat holders will face difficulty in parking their vehicles. They may face difficulty in case of need to repair the building. In fact the Ld.District Forum should have considered this aspect and should have directed the respondent to execute the conveyance deed in respect of open space and additional F.S.I. ought to have given to the society.

[16] It is curious to note that in consumer complaint No.12 of 2010 pertaining to Bhawani Tower 'B' Wing Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Shri.Parwez A.Azami, Chairman had filed brief notes of written argument on behalf of the complainant i.e. Bhawani Tower 'B' Wing Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. In para 12 of the written argument it is specifically urged that a legal entity namely Bhawani Tower 'B' Wing Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. have been registered on or about 09/08/1999. Complainant stated that the complainant society, namely, Bhawani Tower 'B' Wing Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. is an independent society in all aspects when compared with the adjacent building which is referred to as the 'A' Wing. Complainant's society has an independent Entry and Exit gates. It has a separate and an independent Managing Committee which functions in accordance with the law and is not dependent on the 'A' wing in any manner whatsoever. Further, it has a separate electricity connection and meter, a separate water connection and meter, a separate and well defined parking area is earmarked for both the wings. [17] Issue of non providing parking was not raised before the Ld.District 13 (A/15/52) Forum. The report of Architect was not before the Ld.District Forum while passing the impugned order. We have to consider the legality and correctness of order passed by the Ld.District Forum on the basis of the material available before Ld.District Forum. Issue of car parking was never raised by the complainant/appellant while contesting the consumer complaint. Even in appeal memo grievance about car parking does not find place. Appellant/complainant society should have raised this point of insufficient car parking and should have led evidence to that effect before the Ld.District Forum. Plea of insufficient car parking appears to be afterthought and cannot be considered. We are of the view that the appellant society is entitled for the area covered under the sanctioned map and the agreement only. The conveyance of the property cannot go beyond the terms of agreement duly entered into by and between the parties. [18] In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the order passed by the Ld.District Forum is just legal and correct. It is based on the sound reasoning. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Ld.District Forum. As a result, appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass following order-