delay in flat possession
Share this

By Staff Reporter

On May 10, 2024, the Bombay High Court, under Justice Amit Borkar, reviewed a Civil Writ Petition initiated by Balaji Corporation against Delta Central Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Others. The petition contested an order that authorized unilateral deemed conveyance for a plot located in Navi Mumbai. The dispute centered on the application of Rule 9 from the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Registration of real estate projects, Registration of real estate agents, rates of interests and disclosures on website) (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (“RERA Rules”). This rule mandates that an application for unilateral deemed conveyance can only be made after the occupancy certificate has been issued for the last building or wing within the layout. The petitioner maintained that the conveyance of the entire area, including Wing E, was unlawful and requested the court’s intervention. Conversely, it was argued that in the absence of a specifically agreed timeframe in the contract, under both Rule 9 of MOFA Rules and Rule 9 Sub-rule (2) of the RERA Rules 2019, the petitioner was obliged to proceed with the deemed conveyance.

The court reviewed the agreement and related documents and noted that the deal between the individual purchasers and the petitioner covered an area of 8694.03 square meters. It was pointed out that since the occupancy certificate for four wings was issued by respondent No.2 on October 29, 2021, the petitioner should have completed the conveyance in compliance with Rule 9 of the MOFA Rules and the RERA Rules of 2019, given the lack of a specified timeline.

The court further declared that the petitioner’s failure to execute the conveyance justified the competent authority’s action under the Act to direct the issuance of unilateral deemed conveyance for the said area of 8694.03 square meters, as stipulated in the agreement with the purchasers.

Moreover, the court observed that the commencement of construction on Wing E does not impinge on respondent No.1’s entitlement to unilateral deemed conveyance since the original project was limited to four wings. It was affirmed that if the petitioner’s substantive rights were impinged by the order of unilateral deemed conveyance, as established by various court decisions, the appropriate course of action would be to file a substantive lawsuit in Civil Court to address the grievance and challenge the conveyance, without affecting the right to seek legal redress in Civil Court.

The court also referenced pertinent judgments from this Court in the cases of ACME Enterprises and Mazda Construction Company And Others Vs. Sultanabad Darshan CHS Ltd. And Others regarding similar matters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *