Arunkumar H Shah HUF vs Avon Arcade Premises Co-Operative Society Limited & Ors.

Held: MOFA is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect home buyers and the provisions of s.11 are for the benefit of the flat purchasers – In writ jurisdiction, the Court should not interfere with the order granting deemed conveyance u/s.11(4), unless the order is manifestly illegal – Writ court should generally be slow in interfering with such orders because notwithstanding the order u/s.11(4), the remedy of aggrieved parties to file a civil suit remains open – On facts, clause of deed of dissolution provides for the execution of a lease in respect of the A plot in favour of A by L or a cooperative society formed after the construction of new buildings by L – This was to protect the interests of the appellant – Deed of partnership shows that 10th respondent had no right over the property allotted to the appellant under the deed of dissolution – 10th respondent is the lessor of the appellant – Effect of the order of competent authority is that there shall be a deemed conveyance in favour of the first respondent in respect of the entire larger plot subject to the condition of executing a permanent lease deed in favour of the appellant or its nominees – First respondent, after a conveyance in its favour, steps into the shoes of the appellant’s lessor – In view of the fact that deed of dissolution is binding, the appellant cannot object to the condition of the first respondent executing a lease incorporated in the certificate – To protect the appellant’s interest, the impugned order and the certificate provide for the execution of a permanent lease in favour of the appellant – Thus, there will be a perpetual lease executed by the first respondent in favour of the appellant or its nominees – No fault can be found with the order of the competent authority and the impugned order of the High Court – Substantial justice has been done by protecting the appellant’s rights as a perpetual lessee with a right to develop the A plot – Thus, interference in writ jurisdiction not warranted. [Paras 29, 31, 32, 34-36]

Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Act) 1963 – s.11 – Promoter to convey title, etc., and execute documents, according to agreement – Scope of power of competent authority u/s.11:

Held: Quasi-judicial powers have been conferred upon the competent authority while dealing with applications u/s.11(3) – However, proceedings before the competent authority u/s.11(3) are of summary nature, as can be seen from the MOFA Rules – Competent authority, while passing the final order, must record reasons – Competent authority, while following the summary procedure, cannot conclusively and finally decide the questions of title – Thus, notwithstanding the order made u/s.11(4), aggrieved parties can always file a civil suit for establishing their rights – Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Rules, 1964. [Paras 20, 37]

Registration Act, 1908 – s.11(5) – Scope of powers of registration officers – Harmonious construction of s.11(4) and s.11(5):

Held: Power conferred on the registration officer does not enable him to reopen or set aside the findings recorded by the competent authority while passing an order of grant of certificate – Registration officer is neither an appellate authority nor a revisional authority – Scope of adjudication by the registering officer u/s.11(5) is limited – Registering officer has no power to sit in appeal over the order of the competent authority while exercising the power u/s.11(5) – He has no power to go into the correctness or otherwise of the order of the competent authority – He can refuse registration only on certain grounds – Thus, the scope of the powers conferred on the registering officer is limited – This is the only way sub-sections (4) and (5) of s.11 of MOFA can be harmoniously construed. [Paras 22, 23]