SIM PROPERTIES Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Jahagirdar appearing for the Petitioners, Mr.Warunjikar learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 and learned AGPs appearing for Respondent No.1. As common issues are involved, the Petitions are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) Inviting my attention to the impugned order at page No. 101 of the Petition passed under sec. 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulations of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short 'the said Act') granting deemed conveyance to the Respondent No.2 - Society, Shri Jahagirdar Senior Advocate submits that the Petitioner - Developer was not given the reasonable opportunity of hearing as contemplated by sub- sec. 4 of sec. 11 of the said Act.

(3.) The Petitioner is a Developer - Promoter. An application was made by Respondent No. 2 - Society for deemed conveyance under sec. 11 of the said Act before the Competent Authority. It is the contention of the learned Senior Advocate that notices which were issued were sent on the previous address of the Petitioners which was not the address for correspondence at the relevant time of issuance of notices. He invited my attention to page 197 which is a bailif's report. The address mentioned in the said notice is 102, Kumar Vastu, Range Hills, Pune 411020 ('previous address' for short). The report of the bailif records that 'party has left'. He further submits that it appears that all notices were sent on the previous address. Shri Jahagirdar further submitted that the address for correspondence of the Petitioners was very well known to Respondent No.2. He submitted that there was exchange of draft deed of conveyance between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 wherein the address for correspondence was mentioned as 201, B.A.Gateway, Plot No.4, CTS No. 1620, Baner Road, Aundh, Pune 411 007 ('new address' for short). He further invited my attention to notice dtd. 25/06/2019 addressed by the Petitioners to the Advocate for the Respondent No.2 who has fled an application for deemed conveyance. In the said notice, 'correct address' for correspondence is mentioned. Shri Jahagirdar relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neerja Realtors Private Limited Vs. Janglu (dead) through legal representative (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 649 to demonstrate the manner in which the summons are to be served by the bailif in the event the party is not found at the address mentioned in the summons. According to Shri Jahagirdar the bailif ought to have afxed the summons on the conspicuous part of the house concerned. This requirement has not been complied with. Shri Jahagirdar further says that there was no reason for the Petitioners to have avoided attending hearing of the proceedings as in any case there was exchange of draft deed of conveyance between the parties. According to him even the manner in which the public notice is issued leaves much to be desired and even with all due care and caution, it is difcult to notice it. He submitted that the sec. 11(4) of the said Act contemplates a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Promoters and therefore it is the submission that this is a ft case where the present Petition deserves to be allowed and opportunity needs to be given to the Petitioners to be heard in the said proceedings before the Competent Authority.