THE MAHARASHTRA OWNERSHIP OF FLATS (REGULATION OF THE PROMOTION OF CONSTRUCTION, SALE, MANAGEMENT AND TRANSFER) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1963.

v     Apartment owners, etc. are referable to Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 as set out therein.

v     A flat has been defined and includes premises used as mentioned therein. The explanation sets out that when there are certain amenities shared then each premise along with such shared amenities shall be deemed to be one flat.

v     Maharashtra Ownership Flats (regulation of the Promotion of Construction Sale Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, sec. 2(c)---Contract Act, 1872, Sec. 10--- Interpretation of documents --- How to be done--- Dispute between promoter and flat purchasers as to whether document were of sale or of lease---Held, documents are to be construed as per wordings of documents if language is unambiguous. Documents are to be given effect consistent with intention of parties where language is ambiguous ignoring grammatical meanings of words appearing in the document.

v     There cannot be any quarrel for the proposition that the documents are to be construed according to the wording if words in documents are clear and unambiguous. The Court will have to give effect to those words as it appears. But when the words or clause of the documents are ambiguous and not in consistent with the context to which it applies then Court will have to take up the task of finding out the intention of the parties. Intention of the parties are if clear, then the Court will have to give effect to the documents consistent with the intention of the parties ignoring grammatical meaning of the word appearing in the documents. Bharat Builders Pvt. Ltd. v/s Parijat Flat Owners Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd 1998(3) Bom.C.R. 188; 1998 (1) All.M.R. 229; 1999 (3) Bom.C.R. 243    

v     Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, Sec. 2(c)---Contract Act, 1872, Sec. 10--- Interpretation of documents---How to be done---Dispute between promoter and flat purchasers as to whether document were of sale or of lease---Held, documents are to be construed as per wordings of documents if language is unambiguous. Documents are to be given effect consistent with intention of parties where language is ambiguous ignoring grammatical meanings of words appearing in the document.

v     There cannot be any quarrel for the proposition that the documents are to be construed according to the wording if words in documents are clear and unambiguous. The Court will have to give effect to those words as it appears. But when the words or clause of the documents are ambiguous and not in consistent with the context to which it applies then Court will have to take up the task of finding out the intention of the parties. Intention of the parties are if clear, then the Court will have to give effect to the documents consistent with the intention of the parties ignoring grammatical meaning of the word appearing in the documents. Bharat Builders Pvt. Ltd. v/s Parijat Flat Owners Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd 1998(3) Bom.C.R. 188; 1998 (1) All.M.R. 229; 1999 (3) Bom.L.R. 243

v     Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, Sec. 2(c) ---Contract Act, 1872, Sec. 10---Interpretation of documents---Lease Deeds by promoters---Whether a sale---Dispute between promoters and flat owner’s as to whether documents styled as lease were of sale of flats under the Act---Held, in the present case both parties have tried to suppress their real intention and normal rules of interpretation will not apply. This Court was approached by the appellants on the ground that document of transfer was a sale and not a lease and this is sufficient to conclude that document was of sale.

v     In this case that both the parties did not want to disclose their actual intention while entering into documents of the agreement. This has become amply clear from the judgment of this Court in Misc. Petition No.581 of 1977 in their petition filed under Article 226 by the appellant and the some of the members of the respondent Society. The said petition arises from demand made by the Municipal Corporation under section 29(2) of the Bombay Building Repair and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969 on the assumption that the appellant are lessor of the ‘Parijat Flats’ and occupier of the flats are lessees under them. The appellants in this case took a stand in that case that no relationship between lessor and lessee exists between the appellants and flat takers and they are occupying the flats as owners of the flat. Therefore, appellant company was entitled for exemption for payment by virtue of section 28(1)(h) and (1) of the Act. The real intention of the appellant and members of the respondents was to create an agreement for a sale instead of lease. Therefore, in the light of joint submission made before this Court, in earlier occasion it is sheer impropriety on the part of the appellant to argue and contest the matter once again to establish just opposite to what has been contended earlier before this Court. Court has examined the documents very closely; every evidence has been scrutinized by Court. Court has no doubt that every efforts have been made by both the parties to conceal their intention in executing of documents. The very preamble of the documents was made as ambiguous as possible. Therefore, though words are ambiguous, the intention of the parties were also tried to be made more ambiguous. Parties deliberately tried to suppress their intention to be divulged and therefore normal rule of interpretation cannot be possible to apply in the present case. The learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition cannot be relied upon. For the purpose of this appeal, it is not necessary to rely upon the judgment. This cannot be accepted. It is to note that this Court was approached by the appellant and members of the Society with a joint plea that the document is a sale and not a lease. Therefore, the mere pleading contained in the writ petition will be sufficient to come to the conclusion of the clauses contained in the document indicate that the document Exh. E is an agreement for a sale. In view of this, Court does not find any fault in the Court below decreeing the suit of the respondent. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed. Bharat Builders Pvt. Ltd. v/s Parijat Flat Owners Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd 1998(3) Bom.C.R. 188; 1998 (1) All.M.R. 229; 1999 (3) Bom.L.R.243

v     Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, Sec. 2(c) ---Provisions of Act---Applicability to the suit building and to convey their right title and interest in favour of the plaintiffs Society.

v     In the present case the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff society in the terms: it is hereby declared that the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (Regulation and the Promotion of Construction, Sale Management, and Transfer) Act, 1963 are applicable to the suit building. It is further declared that first defendant company is a ‘promoter’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) and was under obligation to take steps for the formation of a Co-operative housing Society or a company of owners of flats and garages according to law and to do all such acts and things as are necessary for the said purposes. It is declared that first defendant is therefore under statutory obligation to take all necessary steps to complete their title to the suit land and building and to convey their right title and interest in the suit land building in favour of the plaintiffs Society. Bharat Builders Pvt. Ltd. v/s Parijat Flat owners Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd 1998(3) Bom.C.R. 188; 1998 (1) All.M.R. 229; 1999 (3) Bom.L.R.243