LEGAL APPROACH
Ensuring Legal Services

 
  Home >>  
  About Us >>  
  Judgments >>  
  Areas of Practice >>  
  Cause Lists >>  
  Bare Acts >>  
  News and Articles >>  
  Formats >>  
  Submit Your Query >>  
  Contact us >>  
  Blog >>  
  Disclaimer >>  
Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd dated 2010-08-31

                                             REPORTABLE

 
 
 
 

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

              CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2544 OF 2010

 
 
Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd.               ...Appellant
 
                            Versus
 
Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.   ...Respondent
 
 

                            WITH

 

              CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2545 OF 2010

              CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2546 OF 2010

              CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2547 OF 2010

              CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2548 OF 2010

              CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2449 OF 2010

              CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2456 OF 2010

 
 
 

                       JUDGEMENT

 
 
R.M. Lodha, J.
 
 

           Of these seven appeals which arise from the

 

judgment dated April 25, 2008 passed by the High Court of


Judicature at Bombay (Appellate Jurisdiction), five are at the

 

instance of the original plaintiff and the other two are by the

 
parties, who were not parties to the proceedings before the
 
High Court or the trial court but they are aggrieved by the
 
findings recorded by the High Court as they claim that these
 
findings are affecting their rights.
 
The facts:
 

2.           Few important questions of law arise in this group of

 

appeals. It will be convenient to formulate the questions after

 

we set out the material facts and the contentions of the parties.

 

The narration of brief facts from S.C. Suit No. 1767 of 2004 will

 
suffice for consideration of these appeals. Nahalchand
 

Laloochand Private Limited is a Private Limited Company. As a

 
promoter, it developd few properties in Anand Nagar, Dahisar
 
(East), Mumbai and entered into agreements for sale of flats
 
with flat purchasers. The flat purchasers are members of
 
Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (for short, `the
 

Society'). The promoter filed a suit before the Bombay City Civil

 

Court, Bombay for permanent injunction restraining the Society

 
 
 

                                                                2


(defendant) from encroaching upon, trespassing and/or in any
 

manner disturbing, obstructing, interfering with its possession in

 

respect of 25 parking spaces in the stilt portion of the building.

 
The promoter set up the case in the plaint that under the
 

agreements for sale it has sold flats in its building and each flat

 

purchaser has right in respect of the flat sold to him and to no

 
other portion. It was averred in the plaint that each flat
 

purchaser has executed a declaration/undertaking in its favour

 
to the effect that stilt parking spaces/open parking spaces
 

shown in the plan exclusively belong to the promoter and that

 

the declarant has no objection to the sale of such spaces by it.

 

The defendant (Society) traversed the claim and set up the plea

 

that the promoter has no right to sell or dispose of spaces in the

 
stilt portion and that the undertakings given by the flat
 

purchasers are not binding being contrary to law and based on

 

such undertakings, the promoter has not acquired any right to

 
sell stilt parking spaces.
 

3.          The parties let in evidence (oral as well as

 
documentary) in support of their respective case.
 
 
 

                                                                 3


4.          On April 4, 2007, the Presiding Judge, City Civil

 

Court, Greater Bombay dismissed the suit with costs.

 

5.          The promoter preferred first appeal before the High

 
Court which was dismissed on April 25, 2008.
 

6.          For   brevity,   we     shall   describe   Maharashtra

 
Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction,
 

Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 as `MOFA',

 

Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulations of the Promotion of

 
Construction, Etc.) Rules, 1964 as `1964 Rules', Development
 

Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 as `DCR',

 

Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 as `MAOA', The

 
Maharashtra Regional         and Town Planning Act, 1966 as
 
`MRTP Act' and Transfer of Property Act as `T.P. Act'.
 
 
The summary of findings recording by the High Court:
 
 

7.          While dismissing the appeal, the High Court

 
recorded the following findings :
 

         7 The carpet area of any of the 56 flats/tenements

           in Panchali building is not less than 35 sq. mtrs.

 
 
 
 

                                                                4


7 The parking space either enclosed or unenclosed,

 covered or open cannot be a `building'.

 
7 It is compulsory requirement to provide for

 parking spaces under DCR.

 
7 It is obligatory on the part of the promoter to

 follow the DCR. The agreement signed under

 MOFA between the developer and the flat

 purchaser must be in conformity with the model

 form of agreement (Form V) prescribed by the

 State Government.
 
7 The model agreement does not contemplate the

 flat purchasers to separately purchase the stilt

 parking spaces.
 
7 The rights arising from the agreement signed

 under the MOFA between the promoter and the

 flat purchasers cannot be diluted by any contract

 or an undertaking to the contrary. The

 undertakings contrary to DCR will not be binding

 either on the flat purchasers or the Society.

 
7 The stilt parking space is a common parking area

 available and the developer is obliged to provide

 the same under the DCR when the carpet area of

 the flat is 350 sq. meters It is not an additional

 premises/area that he is authorized to sell either

 to flat purchaser or any outsider. It is part and

 parcel of the Society building and it cannot be a

 separate premises available for sale. As soon as

 the Corporation issues the occupation certificate

 and the Society is registered, the building as well

 as the stilt parking spaces, open spaces and all

 common amenities become the property of the

 Society.
 
7 The stilt parking spaces cannot be put on sale by

 the developer as he ceases to have any title on

 
 

                                                        5


           the same as soon as the occupation certificate is

           issued by the Corporation and it becomes the

           property of the society on its registration.

 

        7 The stilt parking spaces cannot be termed as

          `open/covered garages' and Clause 2 of the

          Model Agreement--Form V provides for sale of

          covered/open garage in addition to the flat/shop.

 

        7 It is immaterial if the purchase agreement does

          not include stilt car parking spaces in the common

          area of amenities. The stilt car parking spaces is

          part of the common amenities and it cannot be

          treated to be a separate premises/garage which

          could be sold by the developer to any of the

          members of the society or an outsider.

 

        7 Under MOFA, the developer's right is restricted to

          the extent of disposal of flats, shops and/or

          garages, which means that any premises which is

          included in the Flat Space Index (FSI) can be sold

          by the developer/promoter. The stilt parking

          space is not included in the FSI nor it is

          assessable for the Corporation taxes.

 
 
The submissions:
 

8.         Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, learned counsel appearing for

 

the   promoter--Nahalchand      Laloochand      Private   Limited

 
(appellant) contended that:     the stilt parking space being
 

`garage', as an independent unit is covered by the definition of

 
`flat' in Section 2(a-1) of MOFA; Section 2(a-1) creates an
 

artificial definition of `flat' and since in common parlance a

 
 

                                                               6


garage would not be considered as a flat, the legislature
 
clarified and explained that the term `flat' means...... and
 

`includes a garage'; as long as premises are covered from the

 

roof or which have a covered roof and used for the parking of

 

vehicles, that would qualify as `garage' and since stilt parking

 
spaces are covered parking spaces and form part of the
 

building, they fall within the definition of a `garage'; even if stilt

 

parking spaces do not fall within the definition of `flat', they are

 
nevertheless sellable as independent units since right to sell
 
such spaces flows from the bundle of rights associated with
 
ownership of the property and Sections 10 and 11 of MOFA
 

read with Rule 9 of 1964 Rules are not exhaustive of the rights

 
retained by the promoter upon execution of conveyance.
 

Moreover, if stilt parking spaces are treated as `common areas'

 

then the proportionate price for the same would have to be paid

 

by each flat purchaser, irrespective of whether he requires the

 
parking space or not and there may be situations where the
 
number of parking spaces will not be equal to the number of
 

flats and, thus, a person who has paid proportionate price for

 
 
 

                                                                   7


the common parking space may find himself without parking
 
space, even though he has paid for the same. Lastly, the
 
learned counsel submitted that in any event the promoter
 
undertakes that the parking spaces shall be sold only to
 
persons purchasing flats within the subject layout, i.e. the
 

purchasers of flats in the seven buildings which form part of the

 
layout and exist in close proximity.
 

9.          Mr. Pravin K. Samdani, learned senior counsel for

 
one of the appellants viz., Maharashtra Chamber of Housing
 
Industry adopted a little different line of argument. He
 
contended that the provisions of MOFA permit a promoter to
 

sell garage/open/covered car parking space along with the flat.

 

His submission is that MOFA does not define the word `garage'

 
and that word has to be understood and interpreted in
 
accordance with the plain grammatical meaning and not with
 
reference to DCR which have been framed under MRTP Act
 

having different legislative object. As to whether the stilt parking

 
spaces are `common areas', Mr. Pravin K. Samdani             would
 
submit that MOFA does not list out the `common areas' and
 
 
 

                                                                 8


`limited common areas' while MAOA does define these terms
 
and parking spaces thereunder are `common areas and
 

facilities' unless otherwise provided in the declaration by the

 

owner of the property. Under MOFA, it is for the promoter and

 
under MAOA, the declarant has to prescribe at the outset the
 
`common areas' and `limited common areas'. He referred to
 
Sections 3(2)(h), 4(1)(a)(v), 10 and 11 of the MOFA and
 
submitted that the promoter must at the outset indicate the
 
nature of organization (condominium or society or company)
 
that would be formed at the time of sale of flats and on
 
formation of such organization, the promoter joins such
 

organization with a right and power to dispose of remaining flats

 
that would include the remaining unsold open/covered parking
 
space/garage and the organization is transferred unsold
 

open/covered parking spaces only if all the flats have been sold

 

by the promoter. Learned senior counsel would submit that it is

 
wholly irrelevant whether stilt/podium/basement/covered car
 
park attracts FSI or not but     the only relevant criterion   is
 

whether the promoter has listed it as a part of common area or

 
 
 
                                                               9

not and if he has not done so then it is sellable. If he has listed

 
it, then every flat purchaser is proportionately required to
 
contribute for the same.
 

10.         In the appeal filed by one Chirag M. Vora, Mr. Sunil

 
Gupta, learned senior counsel appeared. He argued that MOFA
 
was enacted and enforced in the year 1963 as a regulatory
 

piece of legislation and barring the few aspects in respect of

 
which MOFA makes specific inroads into the rights of the
 
promoter in the matter of construction, sale, management and
 

transfer of flats, all other aspects of the right of the promoter

 
who enters into contract with the flat purchaser remain
 

unaffected and undisturbed. His submission is that MOFA gives

 
a wide meaning to the word `flat' so that buildings of all
 
permutations and combinations may be covered within the
 

scope of that Act and keeping in mind both the plain language

 
of Section 2(a-1) as well as the object of that Act, widest
 

meaning to the word `flat' deserves to be given so that the plain

 

language is satisfied and also the object of the Act is better

 

subserved. He adopted the line of interpretation put forth by Mr.

 
 
 

                                                                 1


Tanmaya Mehta that `garage' includes covered parking spaces
 
and even open parking spaces and is a `flat' in itself under
 
Section 2(a-1). Relying upon Barnett & Block v. National
 
Parcels Insurance Company Ltd.1, learned senior counsel
 

submitted that the minimum requirement of garage is that there

 

should be roof (even if there are no walls) and for the purpose

 

of MOFA, not only a covered parking space like a stilt parking

 
space but also an open parking space is tantamount to
 

`garage'. According to learned senior counsel the word `garage'

 

is not to be read simply as another kind of user as contrasted

 

with residence, office, showroom or shop or godown or industry

 

or business rather it has to be read in contrast and juxtaposed

 

against the expression `set of premises'; it is the alternative to

 

the `set of premises' and not merely to the different users of the

 

set of premises mentioned in Section 2 (a-1). Mr. Sunil Gupta,

 
learned senior counsel would submit that each stilt parking
 

space as well as each open parking space is a `flat' in itself de

 
hors the other accommodations amounting to `flat' under
 

Section 2(a-1) of MOFA. In support of his argument, he relied

1

    [1942] 1 All E.R. 221

 
 

                                                                1


upon a decision of this Court in the case of Municipal
 

Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation

 

Ltd.2. In the alternative, he submitted that if the stilt parking

 
space or open parking space is not held to be a `flat' under
 

Section 2           (a-1), still that space/area cannot be treated as part

 
of `common areas and facilities'.             Firstly, he submitted that
 
common areas and facilities do not include garage/parking
 
spaces and such parking spaces remain ungoverned by MOFA.
 
Sections 3 and 4 of MOFA concern with matters pertaining to
 
`common areas and facilities' but MOFA does not define the
 

meaning of `common areas and facilities'. Section 3(2)(m)(iii)

 

leaves it to the promoter to disclose to his flat purchaser the

 
nature, extent and description of the common areas and
 
facilities. Section 4, by mentioning a prescribed form of
 

agreement, rather opened the possibilities for the promoter to

 

continue to exercise his traditional and pre-Act right to dispose

 
of such parking spaces according to his choice. The
 

stilt/covered/open parking spaces do not figure as part of the

 
common areas and facilities in any project and remain within
2

    1991 Suppl. (2) SCC 18

 
 
                                                                       1

the contractual, legal and fundamental rights of the promoter to

 
dispose of the same in the manner in which he proposes and
 
his customers accept. Section 16 of MOFA does not override
 

this right of a promoter.    Secondly, learned senior counsel

 
would submit that the provisions of MOFA must not be made to
 
depend on the provisions of some other enactment just
 

because the subject matter of the two legislations appears to be

 

the same. In this regard, he referred to Maxwell Interpretation of

 
Statutes, 12th Edition, pages 69 to 70 and G.P. Singh on
 

Principles of Statutory Interpretations, 8th edition, pages 150 to

 

160. He, thus, submitted that for the purposes of understanding

 
the meaning of `flat' under Section 2(a-1) of MOFA, the
 
provisions of MAOA may be looked at but there would be no
 

justification in understanding the expression, `flat' defined in

 
MOFA with reference to MRTP Act, DCR, rules related to FSI
 
and the provisions concerning property tax in the Bombay
 
Municipal Corporation Act.
 
 
 
 

                                                                1


11.         On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned

 
senior counsel and Mr. Umesh Shetty, learned counsel for the
 
Societies stoutly supported the view of the High Court.
 
The issues:
 

12.         In view of the contentions outlined above, the

 

questions that arise for consideration are : (i) whether stand

 

alone `garage' or in other words `garage' as an independent unit

 
by itself is a `flat' within the meaning    of Section 2(a-1) of
 

MOFA; (ii) whether stilt parking space/open parking space of a

 

building regulated by MOFA is a `garage'; (iii) If the answer to

 

aforesaid questions is in the negative, whether stilt parking

 
space/open parking space in such building is part of `common
 

areas and facilities' and (iv) what are the rights of the promoter

 

vis-`-vis society (of flat purchasers) in respect of open parking

 
space/s / stilt parking space/s.
 

13.           All these questions have to be considered in the

 

light of statutory provisions. At this stage we notice some of the

 

provisions of MOFA. As regards other statutory provisions, we

 
shall refer to them wherever necessary.
 
 
 

                                                                1


Relevant provisions of MOFA:
 

14.         The definition of `flat' in Section 2(a-1) is most vital

 
and during course of arguments it has been rightly said that
 
meaning of the word `flat' is the actual fulcrum of MOFA.
 
Section 2(a-1) reads thus:
 

      "S.2(a-1).- "Flat" means a separate and self-contained

      set of premises used or intended to be used for

      residence, or office, show-room or shop or godown or

      for carrying on any industry or business (and includes a

      garage), the premises forming part of a building and

      includes an apartment.

 

      Explanation.--Notwithstanding that provision is made

      for sanitary, washing, bathing or other conveniences as

      common to two or more sets of premises, the premises

      shall be deemed to be separate and self-contained."

 
 

15.         `Promoter' is defined in Section 2(c) as under :

 

      "S.2(c).- `Promoter' means a person and includes a

      partnership firm or a body or association of persons,

      whether registered or not who constructs or causes to

      be constructed a block or building of flats, or apartments

      for the purpose of selling some or all of them to other

      persons, or to a company, co-operative society or other

      association of persons, and includes his assignees; and

      where the person who builds and the person who sells

      are different persons, the term includes both;"

 
 
 
 

                                                                   1


16.         The general liabilities of the promoter are set out in

 

Section 3. To the extent it is relevant to the present case it

 
reads thus :
 

      "S.3.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in any other law,

      a promoter who intends to construct or constructs a

      block or building of flats, all or some of which are to be

      taken or are taken on ownership basis, shall in all

      transactions with persons intending to take or taking

      one or more of such flats, be liable to give or produce,

      or cause to be given or produced, the information and

      the documents hereinafter in this section mentioned.

 
      (2)   A promoter, who constructs or intends to

      construct such block or building of flats, shall--

 

             (a)     make full and true disclosure of the nature

      of his title to the land on which the flats are constructed,

      or are to be constructed; such title to the land as

      aforesaid having been duly certified by an Attorney-at-

      law, or by an Advocate of not less than three years

      standing, and having been duly entered in the Property

      card or extract of Village Forms VI or VII and XII or any

      other relevant revenue record;

 
             (b)    make full and true disclosure of all

      encumbrances on such land, including any right, title,

      interest or claim of any party in or over such land;

 

            (c) to (h)   .....

 
             (i)    not allow persons to enter into possession

      until a completion certificate where such certificate is

      required to be given under any law, is duly given by the

      local authority (and no person shall take possession of a

      flat until such completion certificate has been duly given

      by the local authority);

 
 
 
 

                                                                     1


            (j) to (l)    .....

 

             (m) when the flats are advertised for sale,

      disclose inter alia in the advertisement the following

      particulars, namely :-

 

                   (i)   the extent of the carpet area of the

            flat including the area of the balconies which

            should be shown separately;

 

                    (ii) the price of the flat including the

            proportionate price of the common areas and

            facilities which should be shown separately, to be

            paid by the purchaser of flat; and the intervals at

            which the instalments thereof may be paid;

 

                  (iii) the nature, extent and description of

            the common areas and facilities;

 

                   (iv) the nature, extent and description of

            limited common areas and facilities, if any.

 

            (n)     sell flat on the basis of the carpet area only:

 

             Provided that, the promoter may separately

      charge for the common areas and facilities in proportion

      `to the carpet area of the flat'.

 

            Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause, the

      carpet area of the flat shall include the area of the

      balcony of such flat."

 

17.         Section 4 of MOFA mandates that promoter before

 
accepting advance payment or deposit shall enter into an
 
agreement with the prospective flat purchaser and such
 
agreement shall be registered. It provides as follows:
 
 
 
                                                                      1

"S.4.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law, a promoter who intends to construct or
constructs a block or building of flats all or some of
which are to be taken or are taken on ownership basis,
shall, before, he accepts any sum of money as advance
payment or deposit, which shall not be more than 20 per
cent of the sale price enter into a written agreement for
sale with each of such persons who are to take or have
taken such flats, and the agreement shall be registered
under the Registration Act, 1908" and such agreement
shall be in the prescribed form.
 

       (1A) The agreement to be prescribed under sub-

section (1) shall contain inter alia the particulars as
specified in clause (a); and to such agreement there
shall be attached the copies of the documents specified
in clause (b)--
 
      (a)   particulars--
 
            (i)    if the building is to be constructed,

      the liability of the promoter to construct it

      according to the plans and specifications

      approved by the local authority where such

      approval is required under any law for the time

      being in force;
 

            (ii) to (v)   .....

 

             (vi) the nature, extent and description of

      limited common areas and facilities;

 

             (vii) the nature, extent and description of

      limited common areas and facilities, if any;

 

             (viii) percentage of undivided interest in

      the common areas and facilities appertaining to

      the flat agreed to be sold;

 
 
 
 

                                                            1


                     (ix) statement of the use for which the

            flat is intended and restriction on its use, if any;

 

                  (x)   percentage of undivided interests in

            the limited common areas and facilities, if any,

            appertaining to the flat agreed to be sold;

 

                  (b)    .....   "

 

18.         Section 10 casts duty upon the promoter to take

 

steps for formation of co-operative society or company, as the

 
case may be. The said provision reads as follows :
 
 

      "S.10.- (1) As soon as a minimum number of persons

      required to form a Co-operative society or a company

      have taken flats, the promoter shall within the

      prescribed period submit an application to the Registrar

      for registration of the organization of persons who take

      the flats as a co-operative society or, as the case may

      be, as a company; and the promoter shall join, in

      respect of the flats which have not been taken, in such

      application for membership of a co-operative society or

      as the case may be, of a company. Nothing in this

      section shall affect the right of the promoter to dispose

      of the remaining flats in accordance with the provisions

      of this Act.
 

            Provided that, if the promoter fails within the

      prescribed period to submit an application to the

      Registrar for registration of society in the manner

      provided in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,

      1960, the Competent Authority may, upon receiving an

      application from the persons who have taken flats from

      the said promoter, direct the District Deputy Registrar,

      Deputy Registrar or, as the case may be, Assistant

      Registrar concerned, to register the society :

 
 
 
 

                                                                   1


             Provided further that, no such direction to

      register any society under the preceding proviso shall

      be given to the District Deputy Registrar, Deputy

      Registrar or, as the case may be, Assistant Registrar,

      by the Competent Authority without first verifying

      authenticity of the applicants' request and giving the

      concerned promoter a reasonable opportunity of being

      heard."
 

19.         There is also obligation cast upon promoter to

 

execute the documents of title and convey to the co-operative

 

society   or   the    company      or    an    association    of    flat

 

purchasers/apartment owners, right, title and interest in the land

 
and building by virtue of Section 11 which reads thus:
 
 

      "S.11.- (1) A promoter shall take all necessary steps to

      complete his title and convey to the organization of

      persons, who take flats, which is registered either as a

      co-operative society or as a company as aforesaid, or to

      an association of flat takers or apartment owners his

      right, title and interest in the land and building, and

      execute all relevant documents therefore in accordance

      with the agreement executed under section 4 and if no

      period for the execution of the conveyance is agreed

      upon, he shall execute the conveyance within the

      prescribed period and also deliver all documents of title

      relating to the property which may be in his possession

      or power.
 

      2.    It shall be the duty of the promoter to file with the

      Competent Authority, within the prescribed period, a

      copy of the conveyance executed by him under sub-

      section (1).
 
 
 
 

                                                                     2


      3.     If the promoter fails to execute the conveyance in

      favour of the co-operative society formed under Section

      10 or, as the case may be, the company or the

      association of apartment owners, as provided by sub-

      section (1), within the prescribed period, the members

      of such co-operative society or, as the case may be, the

      company or the association of apartment owners may,

      make an application, in writing, to the concerned

      Competent Authority accompanied by the true copies of

      the registered agreements for sale, executed with the

      promoter by each individual member of the society or

      the company or the association, who have purchased

      the flats and all other relevant documents (including the

      occupation certificate, if any), for issuing a certificate

      that such society, or as the case may be, company or

      association, is entitled to have an unilateral deemed

      conveyance, executed in their favour and to have it

      registered.
 
      (4)   .....
 
      (5)   ....."
 

20.         Section 16 of MOFA provides that the provisions

 

contained therein are in addition to the provisions of the T. P.

 
Act and shall take effect notwithstanding anything to the
 
contrary contained in the contract.
 
Re: question nos. (i) and (ii):
 
(A)   What is `flat'?
 

21.         For proper consideration of questions (i) and (ii) as

 

afore-referred, it is of considerable importance to ascertain the

 

import and meaning of the term `flat' defined in Section 2(a-1) of

 

                                                                   2


MOFA. Rather the answer to the           questions presented for
 

consideration must squarely or substantially depend on what is

 
a `flat'. Justice G.P. Singh in the `Principles of Statutory
 
Interpretation' (12th edition, 2010) says    that the object of a
 
definition of a term is to avoid the necessity of frequent
 

repetitions in describing all the subject matter to which that

 
word or expression so defined is intended to apply. In other
 
words, the definition clause is inserted for the purpose of
 

defining particular subject-matter dealt with and it helps in

 
revealing the legislative meaning.      However,     the definitive
 

clause may itself require interpretation because of ambiguity or

 

lack of clarity in its language. In the `Construction of Statutes'

 

by Earl T. Crawford (1989 reprint) at page 362, the following

 

statement is made: ".......the interpretation clause will control in

 
the absence of anything else in the act opposing the
 

interpretation fixed by the clause. Nor should the interpretation

 
clause be given any wider meaning than is absolutely
 

necessary. In other words, it should be subjected to a strict

 
construction."
 
 
 

                                                                 2


22.         The definition of term `flat' in MOFA at the time of

 
its enactment was this: `flat' means a separate and self-
 
contained set of premises used or intended to be used for
 
residence, or office, showroom or shop or godown (and
 

includes a garage), the premises forming part of a building. By

 
Maharashtra Act No. 15 of 1971, the definition        of `flat' got
 
amended and the words `and includes an apartment' were
 
inserted after the word `building'. Thereafter by Maharashtra
 

Act 36 of 1986, the words `or for carrying on any industry or

 

business' were inserted after the word `godown' and before the

 
bracketed portion `(and includes a garage)'.
 

23.         Before we analyze Section 2(a-1), if we ask what

 

the term `flat' means, apart from the statutory definition, the

 

reply must be that though it has no uniform meaning but in its

 

natural and ordinary meaning, `flat' is a self contained set of

 

premises structurally divided and separately owned for dwelling.

 
Concise Oxford English Dictionary (10th edition, revised)
 

explains `flat' --a set of rooms comprising an individual place of

 
residence within a larger building.
 
 
 

                                                                2


24.          Webster Comprehensive Dictionary; International

 

edition (Vol. 1) explains `flat'-- 1. a set of rooms on one floor,

 

for the occupancy of a family; apartment.          2.    A     house

 
containing such flats.
 

25.          In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (5th edition, Vol. 2), a

 

reference has been made to the observations of Somervell L.J,

 

in Murgatroyd v. Tresarden, 63 T.L.R. 62 and it is stated; the

 

natural meaning of the word `flat' is a separate self-contained

 
dwelling.
 

26.          In Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, (West

 

Publishing Company), Vol. 17, while dealing with the term `flat'

 
generally, it is stated :
 

      "The word `flat' has no technical, legal meaning, so that

      a court can pronounce absolutely one way or the other.

      A building is a `flat' or not, and, where the testimony is

      conflicting, the question is one of fact".

 

27.          Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (3rd

 

edition, 2005) explains the term `flat', in the following way - `in

 

the ordinary use of the term a flat is a self-contained set of

 
rooms, structurally divided and separately owned or let from
 
 
 
 

                                                                   2


the rest of a building, which for the most part consists of other

 
flats separated in like manner'.
 

28.         Reverting back to the definition of the term `flat'

 

under Section 2(a-1), for a `flat' within the meaning of this

 

definition clause, the set of premises has to be a separate and

 

self-contained that forms part of the building which is used or

 

intended to be used for residence or office, showroom or shop

 

or    godown   or     for    carrying   on    industry   or   business.

 

Separateness     of    one     premises      from   another   premises

 

physically and also in use or intended use for one of the uses

 
specified in the definition clause           containing the necessary
 

facilities for self-contained accommodation is sine qua non for a

 

unit being covered by the definition of `flat' occurring in Section

 
2(a-1) which includes an `apartment'.          In other words, it must
 
be a separate unit conforming to the description capable of
 
being used for one of these purposes--namely, residence,
 
office, showroom, shop, godown or for industrial or business
 
purposes. Alternative uses in Section 2(a-1) do expand the
 
ordinary meaning of the term `flat' but nevertheless such
 
 
 
                                                                     2

premises that form part of building must be separate and self-

 

contained. A set of premises is called self-contained if it has

 

the   following    basic   amenities     available:   (a)   sanitary;

 

(b) washing, bathing and (c) other conveniences (cooking etc.)

 
for the use of its occupant/s although as provided in the
 
explanation appended to Section 2(a-1) such provision may be
 
common to two or more sets of premises.               The nature of
 

construction and user are important features of this definition

 

clause. A unit or accommodation to fit in the definition of `flat'

 

must meet twin-test namely: (i) self contained test and (ii) user

 

test. The other predominant characteristic is that it must form

 

part of a building. Crucially, for the relevant premises to be `flat':

 

         7 It must be a separate and self contained premises;

 

         7 It must form part of building;

 

         7 It must be used or intended to be used for any of

 

            the uses namely--residence, office, showroom,

 

            shop, godown or for carrying on any industry or

 
            business.
 
 
 
 

                                                                    2


29.         In the discussion made above, we have not referred

 

to the bracketed portion namely - `(and includes a garage)' so

 

far.   What is the meaning and significance of this bracketed

 

portion? On technical linguistic basis, the bracketed phrase can

 
only attach to the word preceding it. That may not be happy
 

construction nor such construction by reading bracketed portion

 
`(and includes a garage)' with the preceding word `business'
 

appropriately reflects the meaning of the phrase. The scope of

 
the bracketed phrase has to be seen in the context of the
 

definition given to the word `flat' which is true indication of intent

 

of the legislature. It was suggested by learned senior counsel

 

and counsel for the promoters that the phrase `and includes a

 

garage' must be read with the `set of premises' and not with the

 
user. This does not appear to be a correct reading of the
 

expression. We are not persuaded to accept such construction.

 

We think that statutory definition of `flat' must be construed

 

keeping in view the intent of the legislature and the context of

 

the statute and, seen thus, the phrase, `and includes a garage'

 

in the bracket does not bring in `garage' by itself within the

 
 
 

                                                                   2


meaning of word `flat'. If stand alone `garage' (or a garage by

 

itself) were intended by the legislature to be a `flat' within the

 
meaning of Section 2(a-1), that could have been conveniently
 
conveyed by use of the expression `or garage' after the word
 
`business' in the same breath as preceding uses.             The
 

bracketed phrase is rather indicative of the legislative intention

 
to include a `garage' as appurtenant or attachment to a flat
 

which satisfies the ingredients of Section 2(a-1). To this extent

 

Mr. Pravin K. Samdani is right in his submission. It is clear to

 

us that stand alone `garage' or in other words `garage' as an

 

independent unit by itself is not a `flat' within the meaning of

 

Section 2(a-1) and we answer question (i) in the negative. The

 
judgment of Bombay High Court in Dr. K.R. Agarwal Vs.
 

Balkrishna3 to the extent the expression `or garage' has been

 

read after the word `godown' in para 5 (clause 2) of the report

 
does not state the correct legal position in what we have
 
already said above.
 
 

(B)       Whether stilt parking space is a garage?

 
3

    AIR 1972 Bombay 343

 
 

                                                                2


30.        The next question is, whether stilt parking space in

 

a building regulated by MOFA is a `garage'. The term `garage'

 

has not been defined in MOFA and, therefore, we need to first

 

find out what is the extent and scope of that term in Section

 
2(a-1). The general term `garage' is appropriated in English
 
from the French language and means `keeping under cover' or
 
`a place for keeping' of wagons as well as automobiles.
 

Concise Oxford      English Dictionary (10th edition, revised)

 

explains `garage'-- 1 a building for housing a motor vehicle or

 

vehicles. 2 an establishment which sells fuel or which repairs

 
and sells motor vehicles.
 

31.        Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International

 

edition (Vol. 1) explains the word `garage'--a building in which

 
motor vehicles are stored and cared for.
 

32.        Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, (West

 

Publishing Company), Vol. 17, states that `garage' generally is

 

a station in which motorcars can be sheltered, stored, repaired,

 

cleaned, and made ready for use; it is also place for private

 
storage for motorcars; stable for motor cars.
 
 
 
                                                              2

33.         The DCR define two expressions `garage-private'

 

and   `garage-public'     in   Regulations        2(47)    and       2(48)

 

respectively. According to these Regulations, `garage-private'

 

means a building or a portion thereof designed and used for the

 
parking of vehicles and `garage-public' means a building or
 
portion thereof designed other than as a private garage,
 

operated for gain, designed and/or used for repairing, serving,

 
hiring, selling or storing or parking motor-driven or other
 
vehicles. In our view, we must give to the word `garage'
 

occurring in Section 2(a-1) a meaning that general public or for

 

that matter a flat purchaser of ordinary prudence would give to

 
that word or understand by that word. Learned senior counsel
 
Mr. Sunil Gupta referred to Barnett and Block1 wherein
 
Atkinson, J. stated as follows:
 

      "Now what is a garage? No evidence was given to

      suggest or prove that the word "garage" in the trade had

      got any special meaning, and it was agreed to take four

      dictionary definitions set out in the agreed statement of

      facts. The four definitions were these. From the

      SHORTER OXFORD DICTIONARY: "A building for the

      storage or refitting of motor vehicles." From the NEW

      CENTURY DICTIONARY : "A building for sheltering,

      cleaning or repairing motor vehicles. To put or keep in

      a garage." From the NEW STANDARD DICTIONARY:

      "A building for stabling or storing of motor vehicles of all

 
 
                                                                        3

     kinds." From NUTTAL'S STANDARD DICTIONARY :

     "A storehouse for motor vehicles." Those are four

     definitions from leading dictionaries all containing at any

     rate one word in common, and that is "building." As

     there is no evidence as to how the general public

     understand the word "garage,"           I suppose one is

     entitled to use one's own knowledge. I am inclined to

     think that ordinary man in the street does regard a

     garage as connoting some sort of a building; how far he

     would go I do not know. I do not know whether he

     would think that there should be a wall all round it, or

     whether it would be sufficient if there were three sides

     walled in and a roof. I have one in mind where there is

     a row of sheds without any protection in front, which are

     commonly spoken of as "garages," but I am going to

     apply here the test suggested by counsel for the

     insured. He said "A garage is a place where one can

     get reasonable protection and shelter for a car." Can I

     say that you are getting reasonable protection and

     shelter for a car, if there is nothing to protect the car

     from above - if there is no roof of any sort? I think the

     ordinary man, as counsel for the insurers suggested,

     who took a house with a garage, if he came and found

     merely an open shed without any roof, would think he

     had been swindled, however high the walls might be. I

     cannot think that one is entitled to say that it is adequate

     or reasonable protection or shelter if there is no roof; but

     this is worse than that, though I agree that the walls are

     very good here. Wherever you put a car in this yard, in

     addition to there being no shelter from above, there will

     be no shelter on two sides. That seems to me to be

     really conclusive."

 
 
He, thus, submitted that even a place with merely a roof may
 

well be a `garage'. By placing reliance on condition No. 2 in

 
Form V of 1964 Rules, learned senior counsel submitted that
 
 
 

                                                                    3


for the purposes of MOFA, even an open parking space is
 
tantamount to a `garage'.
 

34.         The relevant portion of condition No. 2, Form V

 
appended to 1964 Rules reads as under:
 

      "2.      The Flat Purchaser hereby agrees to purchase

      from the Promoter and the Promoter hereby agrees to

      sell to the Flat Purchaser one flat No. .......... of the

      Type .......... of carpet area admeasuring .......... sq.

      meters (which is inclusive of the area of balconies) on

      .......... floor as shown in the Floor plan thereof hereto

      annexed and marked Annexures D/Shop No. ..........

      /covered/open Garage No. .......... in the ..........

      Building (hereinafter referred to as "the Flat") for the

      price of Rs. .......... including Rs. .......... being the

      proportionate price of the common areas and facilities

      appurtenant to the premises, the nature extent and

      description of the common/limited common areas and

      facilities/limited common areas and facilities which are

      more particularly described in the Second Schedule

      hereunder written. The Flat Purchasers hereby agrees

      to pay to that Promoter balance amount of purchase

      price of Rs. .......... (Rupees .......... ...............)

      having been paid to the Promoter on or before the

      execution of his agreement in the following manner."

 
 

35.         We do not perceive any force in the argument that

 
open parking space tantamounts to a `garage' within the
 

meaning of Section 2(a-1) read with condition No. 2 Form V of

 

1964 Rules. Can a person buying a flat for residence or one of

 

the uses mentioned in Section 2(a-1) really think that open to

 
 

                                                                    3


the sky or open space for parking motor vehicles is a garage?

 
We do not think so. The word `garage' may not have uniform
 
connotation but definitely every space for parking motor
 
vehicles is not a garage. A roofless erection could not be
 
described a garage. What is contemplated by a `garage' in
 

Section 2(a-1) is a place having a roof and walls on three sides.

 

It does not include an unenclosed or uncovered parking space.

 
It is true that in condition No. 2, Form V the words
 
`covered/open garage' have been used but, in our view, the
 

word `open' used in the Model Form V cannot override the true

 

meaning of term `garage' in Section 2(a-1). As a matter of fact,

 

none of the provisions      of MOFA regards `open garage'

 

connoting `flat' or an appurtenant/attachment to a flat. We do

 
not think undue importance should be given to word `open'
 
which has loosely been used in condition No. 2, Form V. The
 

true meaning of the term `garage' in Section 2(a-1), we think, is

 
not affected by a Model Form V appended to the 1964 Rules.
 

36.            The question then is as to whether the stilted

 

portion or stilt area of a building is a garage under MOFA. A

 
 
 

                                                               3


stilt area is a space above the ground and below the first floor

 

having columns that support the first floor and the building. It

 

may be usable as a parking space but we do not think that for

 
the purposes of MOFA, such portion could be treated as
 

garage. It was argued that the test accepted by Atkinson, J. in

 

Barnett & Block1-that a garage is a place where one can get

 

reasonable protection and shelter for a car--is satisfied by stilt

 
car parking space and such space is a garage. We are unable
 

to agree.   The test accepted by Atkinson, J. in Barnett and

 
Block1 also does not support this argument.      Even as per that
 

test a place having roof but offering no shelter or protection on

 
two sides cannot be a garage.        It is worth repeating what
 

Atkinson,J. said, `....I am inclined to think that the ordinary man

 
in the street does regard a garage as connoting some sort of
 
building; how far he would go I do not know. I do not know
 

whether he would think that there should be a wall all round it,

 

or whether it would be sufficient if there were three sides walled

 

in and a roof. I have one in mind where there is row of sheds

 

without any protection in front, which are commonly spoken of

 
 
 

                                                                 3


as "garages".'    Atkinson,J. applied the test of `reasonable

 

protection and shelter for car' as was suggested by the counsel

 

for the insurer while construing the term `garage' in a policy of

 

insurance. For the purposes of MOFA, and particularly Section

 
2(a-1), the term `garage' must be considered as would be
 
understood by a flat purchaser and such person would
 
contemplate garage which has a roof and wall on three sides.
 
Our answer to question No. (ii) is, therefore, no.
 
 
Re: question no. (iii) - Whether stilt parking spaces are
part of `common areas and facilities'?
 
 

37.          The High Court has held that the stilt car parking

 
spaces are part of the common amenities. Is the High Court
 

right in its view?    MOFA does not define nor it explains

 

`common areas and facilities' though the said phrase is used at

 
various places in that Act.    Mr. Pravin K. Samdani, learned
 
senior counsel for Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry
 
submitted that following could be termed as part of the
 
`common areas':
 
         7        15% Recreation Ground (RG) Area;
 
 

                                                               3


         7         Recreational facilities and/or club house on above

                   RG Areas;

         7         Society Office;
         7         Security guards cabin;
         7         Common passage/lobbies;
         7         Stair case;
         7         Lift;
         7         Terraces over the roof of the building;
         7         Landings on each floor;
         7         Columns and beams of the building
         7         Playgrounds, if any.
 
According to him, the following could be part of `Limited
 
Common Areas':
 

         7         Separate lift attached to a particular flat and/or

                                certain number of flats;

         7         Terrace attached to a flat;

         7         Servants toilet on each floor, meant for the user

                                of the flats on that particular floor;

 
 

The aforesaid list as suggested by the learned senior counsel,

 

in our opinion, is not exhaustive. It may not be out of place to

 
refer to Section 3(f) of MAOA which defines `common areas
 
and facilities' as follows:
 
 

               "3(f)   "common areas and facilities", unless

      otherwise provided in the Declaration or lawful

      amendments, thereto means--

 
             (1)   the land on which the building is located;
 
 
 
 
                                                                    3

             (2)    the foundations, columns, girders, beams,

      supports, main walls, roofs, halls, corridors, lobbies,

      stairs, stair-ways, fire-escapes and entrances and exits

      of t he buildings;
 
            (3)   the basements, cellars, yards, gardens,

      parking areas and storage spaces;

 
           (4)   the premises for the lodging of janitors or

      persons employed for the management of the property;

 
             (5)    installations of central services, such as

      power, light, gas, hot and cold water, heating,

      refrigeration, air conditioning and incinerating;

 
             (6)    the elevators, tanks, pumps, motors, fans,

      compressors, ducts and in general all apparatus and

      installations existing for common use;

 
           (7)   such community and commercial facilities

      as may be provided for in the Declaration; and

 

           (8)     all other parts of the property necessary or

      convenient to its existence, maintenance and safety, or

      normally in common use;"

 
 

It is true that interpretation clause or legislative definition in a

 

particular statute is meant for the purposes of that statute only

 

and such legislative definition should not control other statutes

 

but the parts of the property stated in clauses (2), (3) and (6) of

 

Section 3(f) as part of `common areas and facilities' for the

 
purposes of MAOA are what is generally understood by the
 

expression `common areas and facilities'. This is fortified by the

 

                                                                  3


fact that the areas which according to the learned senior
 
counsel could be termed as `common areas' in a building
 
regulated by MOFA are substantially included in aforenoticed
 
clauses of Section 3(f) of MAOA. Looking to the scheme and
 

object of MOFA, and there being no indication to the contrary,

 

we find no justifiable reason to exclude parking areas (open to

 

the sky or stilted portion) from the purview of `common areas

 
and facilities' under MOFA.
 

38.        It was argued that under MOFA it is for the promoter

 
to prescribe and define at the outset the `common areas' and
 

unless it is so done by the promoter, the parking area cannot be

 
termed as part of `common areas'.      We are quite unable to
 
accept this submission. Can a promoter take common
 

passage/lobbies or say stair case or RG area out of purview of

 

`common areas and facilities' by not prescribing or defining the

 

same in the `common areas'? If the answer to this question is

 

in negative, which it has to be, this argument must fail. It was

 

also submitted that by treating open/stilt parking space as part

 
of `common areas', every flat purchaser will have to bear
 
 
 
                                                              3

proportionate cost for the same although he may not be
 

interested in such parking space at all. We do not think such

 

consideration is relevant for the consideration of term `common

 

areas and facilities' in MOFA. It is not necessary that all flat

 

purchasers must actually use `common areas and facilities' in

 
its entirety. The relevant test is whether such part of the
 

building is normally in common use. Then it was submitted that

 
if a parking space is sold to a flat purchaser, it is to the
 

exclusion of other flat purchasers and, therefore, logically also it

 
cannot be part of `common areas'. This submission is founded
 

on assumption that parking space (open/covered) is a `garage'

 

and sellable along with the flat. We have, however, held in our

 

discussion above that open to the sky parking area or stilted

 
portion usable as parking space is not `garage' within the
 
meaning of Section 2(a-1) and, therefore, not sellable
 

independently as a flat or along with a flat. As a matter of fact,

 
insofar as the promoter is concerned, he is not put to any
 

prejudice financially by treating open parking space/stilt parking

 

space as part of `common areas' since he is entitled to charge

 
 
 

                                                                 3


price for the common areas and facilities from each flat
 
purchaser in proportion to the carpet area of the flat. MOFA
 
mandates the promoter to describe        `common areas       and
 

facilities' in the advertisement as well as the `agreement' with

 

the flat purchaser and the promoter is also required to indicate

 

the price of the flat including the proportionate price of the

 
`common areas and facilities'.    If a promoter does not fully
 

disclose the common areas and facilities he does so at his own

 

peril.   Stilt parking spaces would not cease to be part of

 
common areas and facilities merely because the promoter has
 
not described the same as such in the advertisement and
 
agreement with the flat purchaser.     Although there is some
 

merit in the contention of the appellant that High Court erred in

 

placing reliance on the two aspects--namely, that the area of

 

stilt parking space is not included in the FSI and such area is

 
not assessable to the corporation taxes -       in reaching the
 

conclusion that stilt parking space is part of `common areas' but

 

in our view even if these two aspects are excluded, in what we

 
have discussed above stilt parking space/open parking space
 
 
 

                                                               4


of a building regulated by MOFA is nothing but a part of
 

`common areas' and, accordingly, we answer question no. (iii)

 
in the affirmative.
 
Re: question no. (iv) - what are the rights of a promoter
vis-`-vis society in respect of stilt parking spaces?
 

39.         We have now come to the last question namely--

 
what are the rights of a promoter vis-`-vis society (of flat
 

purchasers) in respect of stilt parking space/s. It was argued

 
that the right of the promoter to dispose of the stilt parking
 

space is a matter falling within the domain of the promoter's

 

contractual, legal and fundamental right and such right is not

 

affected. This argument is founded on the premise, firstly, that

 

stilt parking space is a `flat' by itself within the meaning of

 
Section 2(a-1) and in the alternative that it is not part of
 
`common areas'. But we have already held that `stilt parking
 

space' is not covered by the term `garage' much less a `flat'

 

and that it is part of `common areas'. As a necessary corollary

 

to the answers given by us to question nos. (i) to (iii), it must be

 

held that stilt parking space/s being part of `common areas' of

 

the building developed by the promoter, the only right that the

 
 

                                                                  4


promoter has, is to charge the cost thereof in proportion to the

 
carpet area of the flat from each flat purchaser. Such stilt
 
parking space being neither `flat' under Section 2(a-1) nor
 

`garage' within the meaning of that provision is not sellable at

 
all.
 

40.         MOFA was enacted by the Maharashtra Legislature

 
as it was found that builders/developers/promoters were
 

indulging in malpractices in the sale and transfer of flats and the

 
flat purchasers were being exploited. The effect of MOFA may
 
be summarized as follows.           First, every promoter who
 

constructs or intends to construct block or building of flats in the

 
area to which MOFA applies has to strictly adhere to the
 

provisions contained therein, i.e., inter alia, he has to make full

 

and true disclosure of the nature of his title to the land on

 

which the flats are constructed and also make disclosure          in

 
respect of the extent of the carpet area of the flat and the
 
nature, extent and description of the common areas and
 

facilities when the flats are advertised for sale. Secondly, the

 

particulars which are set out in Section 4(1A) (a) (i) to (x) have

 
 
 

                                                                 4


to be incorporated in the agreement with the flat purchaser.
 
Thirdly, the promoter has to apply to the Registrar for
 
registration of the organization (co-operative society or
 
company or condominium) as soon as minimum number of
 

persons required to form such organization have taken flats. As

 

regards unsold flats, the promoter has to join such organization

 

although his right to dispose of unsold flats remains unaffected.

 
Fourthly, and more importantly, the promoter has to take all
 
necessary steps to complete his title and convey to the
 

organization his right, title and interest in the land and building

 

and execute all relevant documents accordingly. It was argued

 
by Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, learned counsel for the promoter that
 
in view of the provisions of MOFA, Section 6 of T.P. Act and
 
Article 300A of the Constitution, the    right of the promoter to
 

transfer parking spaces is not at all restricted. Relying upon the

 
decisions of this Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers
 

Ltd. & Ors..4, Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. N.

 

Narasimahaiah & Ors.5 and Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors.,

 
 
4
    (2006) 10 SCC 452
5
    (2008) 5 SCC 176
 
 

                                                                 4


v. State of Gujarat & Anr.6, he submitted that the provisions

 
contained in MOFA must be construed strictly and there is no
 
provision either express or by necessary implication in MOFA
 

restricting the sale of stilt or open parking spaces. Mr. Sunil

 

Gupta also argued that promoter continues to have contractual,

 

legal and fundamental right to dispose of the stilt/open parking

 
space in the manner in which he proposes and his consumers
 

accept.          We think this argument does not bear detailed

 

examination. Suffice it to say that if the argument of learned

 
senior counsel and counsel for promoter is accepted, the
 
mischief with which MOFA is obviously intended to deal with
 
would remain unabated and flat purchasers would continue to
 
be exploited indirectly by the promoters.        In our opinion,
 

MOFA does restrict the rights of the promoter in the block or

 

building constructed for flats or to be constructed for flats to

 

which that Act applies. The promoter has no right to sell any

 

portion of such building which is not `flat' within the meaning of

 
Section 2(a-1) and the entire land and building has to be
 

conveyed to the organisation; the only right remains with the

6
    (2008) 4 SCC 144
 
 

                                                                4


promoter is to sell unsold flats.        It is, thus, clear that the
 

promoter has no right to sell `stilt parking spaces' as these are

 
neither `flat' nor appurtenant or attachment to a `flat'.
 

41.         In view of the above, it is not at all necessary to deal

 
with the factual submissions advanced by Mr. Tanmaya Mehta.
 

Having regard to the answer to question no. (iv), the finding of

 

the High Court that undertakings are neither binding on the flat

 
purchasers nor the society also warrants no interference.
 

42.          These appeals, accordingly, fail and are dismissed

with no order as to costs.
 
 
 
 

                                            ..............................J

                                                  (R. M. Lodha)

 
 
 

                                             .............................J

                                                  (A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi.
August 31, 2010.
 
 
 
 

                                                                        4


 


© 2008-2014 Legal Approach