By Staff Reporter
The Bombay High Court, in a judgment dated December 19, 2024, by Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, addressed a writ petition filed by Keyuri Constructions Private Limited. The case centered on the interpretation of Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA), the rights of societies, and the role of third-party agreements concerning unconsumed Floor Space Index (FSI).
Issue at Hand
The key issue was whether the petitioner, Keyuri Constructions, which claimed a contractual right under a Joint Venture Agreement with the developer (Respondent No. 4), had the right to be heard in proceedings under Section 11 of MOFA concerning the grant of deemed conveyance to the housing society (Respondent No. 3).
Distinction Between Petitioner’s Rights and Societies’ Rights
The Court emphasized that societies registered under the MOFA framework have statutory rights to enforce obligations against the promoter. However, the petitioner, who based its claims on a Joint Venture Agreement, could not be equated with these societies. The petitioner’s contractual rights did not align with the statutory scheme of MOFA, which governs the relationship between promoters and societies.
The Court clarified that the petitioner is not a promoter and thus cannot be held responsible for fulfilling MOFA obligations toward the society.
Impact of Status Quo Order on Unconsumed FSI
A status quo order was issued concerning the voluntary transfer of the unconsumed FSI by Respondent No. 4 to third parties. However, the Court clarified that this did not prevent the deemed conveyance from being granted to the society. The petitioner retains the right to pursue civil proceedings to seek restraining orders concerning the unconsumed FSI.
Petitioner Not a Necessary Party to Section 11 Proceedings
The Court held that the petitioner is not a necessary party in Section 11 proceedings. It reasoned that the petitioner’s claim was based on a Joint Venture Agreement, which is subject to a separate specific performance suit. The lack of a vested property right excluded the petitioner from participating in deemed conveyance proceedings.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the society’s statutory rights under MOFA while protecting the petitioner’s ability to pursue civil remedies regarding unconsumed FSI.
