DYANESHWARI CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner Dyaneshwari Co-operative Housing Society Limited on behalf of its 40 members who are allotees of tenements in a building situated at Sewri-Wadala, Bombay and known as D-2, Dyaneshwar Nagar. The tenements were alloted to the membes of the petitioner society by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority. The grievances of the petitioners are set out in para 3 of the writ petition which reads as follows :

(2.) BEFORE dealing with these grievances, it may be expedient to mention that the petitioners had approached this Court on earlier occasion also challenging the fixation of price of these tenements by the Board on the ground that the Housing Board Authority was entitled to fix the price only on the basis of no profit and no loss, which they have not done. This Court directed the authority to furnish the break-up of the cost to the petitioners to enable them to verify the same. Break-up was, accordingly, furnished. The petitioners, by this present petition, now seek to challenge the adequacy as well as the correctness of the accounts provided by the respondents. It is not the case of the petitioners that any profit has been made by the respondents in fixing the price. The grievance of the petitioners is that it is because of inefficiency of the respondents that there was delay in the completion of the construction which resulted in the higher cost and, as such, they should not be allowed to recover such enhanced cost from the petitioners.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners. So far as the grievance made in para 3 (b) in regard to the refusal of the respondents to carry out the essential repairs is concerned, the stand of the respondents is that once the tenements are handed over to the allotees, the respondents are under no obligation to carry out any repairs thereafter. As such, the grievance of the petitioners on this count is misconceived. I find force in this submission. Accordingly, this grievance of the petitioners is not tenable and the same is, therefore, rejected.