SANTOSH S. MAYEKAR Vs. RUPJI CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai owned land admeasuring 1760 sq.mtrs. in Parel, consisting of three old chawls. The old structures on the said land were in a dilapidated condition and the tenants/occupants were desirous of developing the said property after demolishing the old structure. They formed a society namely, Raigarh Nagar Housing Society and appointed the respondent Rupji Constructions, hereinafter referred to as developer, to develop the said property. An agreement for development dated 7.4.2006 was executed between them and the developer. The proposal for development of the said land was duly approved by the MCGM. Under the development agreement with the occupants/tenants of the said land, the developer obtained rights to sell the flats, offices, shops and other premises to the persons interested in purchasing the same. Accordingly, the complainants/appellants applied to the respondents for allotment of residential flats, to be constructed by the developer and executed separate agreements with the developer, incorporating their respective obligations in respect of the said transactions. The possession of the allotted flats was to be delivered to the complainants/appellants on or before the date mentioned in clause 10 of the agreements executed between the parties. The following are the broad particulars of the agreements between the appellants, the respondent, the date on which the possession was to be delivered to them and the payment which the appellants made to the respondent:-

(2.) Since the possession of the allotted flats was not delivered to them within the time stipulated in the agreements, the complainants/appellants approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate consumer complaints seeking possession of the allotted flats along with compensation etc. The complainants/appellants also disputed the additional sale consideration demanded from them by the respondents, pursuant to the demand raised upon it by the Municipal Corporation towards capitalized value/BMC Premium.

(3.) The complaints were resisted by the respondent which admitted the agreements executed with the complainants/appellants. It was interalia stated in their reply that they were ready to complete the project on receipt of the balance sale consideration from the flat buyers.