Case: Paul Parambi, Chief Promoter, Springs Chs Limited &amp; Another Vs. The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited &amp; Another

the flats as a co-operative society, or as the case may be, a company. The promoter is obliged to join in the application for membership of a co-operative society or in case of a company even in respect of flats, which have not been taken or which remained unsold. However, the legislature has taken care not to deprive the promoter of his right to dispose of the remaining flats in accordance with the provisions of MOFA, 1963. Therefore, a balancing act has been performed. Just as there is a regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer of the ownership flats, equally, the right that is created in the promoter to dispose of the flats, which have not been taken by persons joining to form an organisation, remains unaffected and untouched. The principle of statutory interpretation, which harmonises and enables both statutes to co-exist without any conflict or collusion ought to be placed, therefore, on the statutory provisions in question.45. In Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G. P. Singh, 14th Edition, the learned author, emphasises and points out the essence of the rule of harmonious construction. That is that none of the provisions should be reduced to "useless lumber" or "dead letter". That is not harmonious construction. These principles have also been applied in resolving the conflict between two different Acts as well. We have applied that very principle. We do not think that while holding as above, we have nullified the effect and impact of either of the statutes. There is no basis for the complaint that if the interpretation as suggested and placed by us is upheld, then, it will not be possible to submit the property to the MAO Act. We do not think that language of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 gives any room for such complaint at all.46. We, therefore, find that Respondent No.2 had completely misdirected itself in rejecting the application for registration of the Petitioner on the ground that this purported Deed of Declaration was challenged in a suit that is pending in this Court. It was the duty of Respondent No.2 to give full effect to Section 10(2) of the MOFA, 1963 and to examine whether the Declaration executed and registered under the MAO Act was in consonance with the MAO Act before it came to the conclusion that there was a bar from considering the application of the Petitioners for forming a co-operative society. This exercise, we find has not been undertaken by Respondent No.2 at all and he has completely abdicated his duty in this regard.47. We also find from the facts of the present case that the unilateral Declaration has been executed behind the back of the flat purchasers. When they purchased their flats, the respective flat purchasers were never informed that the property they were purchasing was going to be submitted to the provisions of the MAO Act. In fact, clause 24 of one of the agreements executed with the flat purchasers reads as follows:-"24. The Purchaser/s along with the other purchasers of premises in the said Residential Building shall join in forming and registering the Society or association of flat owners or Limited Company to be known by such name as the Promoter may decide and for this purpose also from time to time sign and execute the application for registration and/or membership and other papers and documents necessary for the formation and registration of the Society or Limited Company or an association of flat owners and for becoming a member, including the bye-laws of the proposed Society and duly fill in, sign and return to the Promoter within 15 days of the same being forwarded by the Promoter to Flat Purchasers, so as to enable the Promoter to register the organization of the Flat Purchasers under Section 10 of the said Act, within the time limit prescribed by Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of the Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Rules, 1964. No objection shall be taken by the Purchaser/s if any changes or modifications are made in the draft bye-laws, or the Memorandum and/or Articles of Association or Declaration, as may be required by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or the Registrar appointed under the Apartment Ownership Act or the Registrar of Companies, as the case may be, or any other Competent Authority."48. In fact on reading this clause, it is clear that Respondent No.1 never categorically informed the flat purchasers that the property was being subjected to the provisions of the MAO Act. The indication would be otherwise. Further more, as mentioned earlier, the 1st Respondent had itself given an undertaking to the Municipal Commissioner on 11th June, 2010 (page 971 and 972 of the compilation Vol. V) that the ownership of the structure and other appurtenant user shall vest in all the owners and that the 1st Respondent is planning to form a proposed society of the said building which it proposes to construct. Further more, as late as 20th October, 2011, a receipt has been issued to one of the flat purchasers which indicates that part of the money that Respondent No.1 has received from said flat purchaser is towards formation of the society. The said receipt reads as under:-"ReceiptReceived with thanks from Mr. Nitin Radheshyam Agarwal & Mrs. Nikita Nitin Agarwal a sum of Rs.26,95,504.00 (Rs. Twenty Six Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Five Hundred Four Only) vide cheque/ DD No. 293214603 dated 20-Oct-2011 drawn on Wire Transfer Amount received towards flat cost addl. adm. chsg. legal chgs, install, of water, electricity, Gas connection, Formation of Soc. Dev. Chgs. Club Facility and Service Tax for 4 BHK facing West-2104 in the building proposed to be called "Springs"."49. We, therefore, find that this unilateral execution and registration of the Deed of Declaration by Respondent No.1 submitting the property to the provisions of the MAO Act cannot be an impediment in Respondent No.2 considering the application of the Petitioners for formation of a co-operative society.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We have also carefully perused the impugned order. Before we deal with the rival contentions, it would be necessary to note the objects and reasons of MOFA, 1963 as well as the MAO Act and several of its provisions. The objects and reasons of the MOFA, 1963 indicate that initially the Government of Maharashtra appointed a committee known as the Paymaster Committee to study and report various aspects of the business of construction and sale of flats on ownership basis. The Committee submitted its report to the Government of Maharashtra on 29th June, 1961. On the basis of the findings of this Committee, the Government introduced a Bill. The object behind the legislation was to see that there is integrity of purpose on the part of the promoter and that there is willingness and earnestof the flat purchaser and to solve the enormous problem of housing to some extent. It is in these circumstances, that MOFA, 1963 was promulgated. The preamble of this Act would show that it is enacted to regulate in the State of Maharashtra, the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer of flats taken on ownership basis.The first proviso to Section 10(1) and which was inserted by the Legislature in 2008 stipulates that if the Promoter failed within the prescribed period (which is a period of four months as prescribed by Rule 8 of the said Rules) to submit the application to the Registrar for registration of the society in the manner provided in the MaharashtraCooperative Societies Act, 1960,then, the Competent Authority may, upon receiving an application from the person who has taken flats from the said promoter, direct the District Deputy Registrar, Deputy Registrar, or as the case may be, the Assistant Registrar concerned to register the society. The second proviso that was inserted stipulates that no such direction could be given by the Competent Authority without first verifying the authenticity of the applicants request and giving the concerned promoter a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This is basically the Legislative history behind Section 10. The other sections of MOFA, 1963 are not really germane for the purpose of the disputes raised before us and hence we are not referring to the same.27. Having noted the relevant provisions of MOFA, 1963, we now turn our attention to the provisions of the MAO Act. The object and reasons of the MAO Act would reveal that consequent upon the shortage of lands in urban areas, the majority of citizens of urban areas of the State could not think in terms of owning houses on individual basis. Though there was an overgrowing tendency to constructflats, apartments and the like on ownership basis, persons purchasing flats, tenements or apartments did not have a marketable title thereto and could not obtain any loan by mortgaging such flats, tenements etc. Consequently, tenements constructed by Housing Boards for example could not be sold to the tenants who could not raise any loan on the security of such tenements. The result of this was that an enormous amount of capital was locked up which could otherwise be utilised for new constructions to meet the increasing demands for housing. It was therefore considered expedient that each apartment should, for all purposes, constitute a heritable and transferable immovable property, and that suitable legislation should provide for all matters connected therewith. The Legislature felt that such a measure would not only enable many a person to own his apartment, but it would at the same time enable institutions like the Housing Boards, to utilize their locked up capital in the construction of new buildings. Keeping these objects in mind, the MAO Act was brought into force w.e.f. 19th February, 1971.As the section itself stipulates that MAO Act applies only to the property, the sole owner, or all of the owners of which, submit the same to the provisions of this Act by duly executing and registering a Declaration as more particularly provided therein. In other words, if there is more than one owner of the property then all of them have to join in executing and registering a Declaration as contemplated under the said Act. Conversely, what becomes clear is that if there are more owners than one, a single owner cannot unilaterally submit the property to the provisions of the MAO Act.Having noted and analysed the provisions of these two Acts (namely MOFA, 1963 and the MAO Act), we shall now turn our attention to the contentions raised before us by the respective parties. The first contention raised by Mr. Dhakephalkar was that Section 10(2) of MOFA, 1963, and more particularly the embargo to form asociety, should be read with and subject to Section 10(1). He submitted that Section 10(1) stipulates that as soon as a minimum number of persons required to form acooperative society or acompany have taken flats, thePromoter shall within the prescribed period, submit an application to the Registrar for registration of acooperative society oras the case may be, a company. The prescribed period as mentioned in Section 10(1) is a period of four months as more particularly set out in Rule 8 of the said Rules. He submitted that this period of four months that has been prescribed in Section 10(1) has to also apply to a promoter when he seeks to execute and register a Declaration by submitting the property to the provisions of MAO Act. If this was not done within the prescribed period (four months), then the embargo as set out in Section 10(2) would not come into play and the flat purchasers would not be barred or precluded from seeking registration of asociety.34. As far as this contention is concerned, we are unable to agree with the submissions of Mr. Dhakephalkar. In our opinion, and as rightly submitted by Mr. Chinoy, such an interpretation / construction would becontrary to the settled principles. If we are to accept the interpretation of Mr. Dhakephalkar, the same would amount torewriting / adding words to theunambiguous language of Section 10(2) and which would result in the said provision being substantially altered. If in fact the intention of the Legislature was to prescribe a definite period by which a promoter was to submit the property to the provisions of the MAO Act [before the embargo as set out in Section 10(2) came into play], it would have specifically done so. It could have simply provided for one more option in Section 10(1). We find considerable force in the argument of Mr. Chinoy that Section 10(2) is an independent provision under which no time period has been prescribed for submitting the property to the MAO Act so long as the same is done prior to an application being filed for registration of acooperative society ora company, as the case may be. We are clearly of the view that if we were to accept the interpretation of the Petitioners, the same would restrict and negate the plain and clear language of Section 10(2) by reading words into the statute that are conspicuous by their absence. Thus, to our mind, this would be contrary to the basic canons of interpretation and construction of a Statute. We, therefore, are unable to agree with the submissions of Mr. Dhakelpahlar that before the embargo as stipulated in Section 10(2) can kick in, the promoter has to submit the property to the provisions of the MAO Act within a period of four months after a minimum number of persons required to form acooperative society ora company have taken the flats. This contention of Mr. Dhakephalkar is, therefore, rejected.35. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the next contention of Mr. Dhakephalkar was that there was no impediment in registering asociety under Section 10(2) of the MOFA, 1963, because the Promoter (Respondent No.1 in the present case) had not complied with the conditions contained therein, namely, that the Promoter had not informed the Registrar as defined in the MaharashtraCooperative Societies Act, 1960about submitting the property to the provisions of the MAO Act. This being the position, the bar under Section 10(2) would not apply, was the submission.36. We find considerable force in this argument. Section 10(2) of MOFA, 1963 [and as reproduced by us earlier] clearly stipuates that if any property consisting of a building or buildings is constructed or to be constructed and the Promoter submits such property to the provisions of the MAO Act by executing and registering a Declaration as provided by that Act, then the Promoter shall inform the Registrar of the same as defined in the MCS Act accordingly. Only once both these conditions are fulfilled [namely execution and registration and thereafter initmation], it would be unlawful to form anycooperative society ora company. Section 2(24) of the MCS Act defines the word "Registrar", as a person appointed to be the Registrar ofsocieties under the MCS Act. Section 3 of the MCS Act talks about the Registrar and his subordinates and reads asRegistrar and his subordinates.The State Government may appoint a person to be the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for the State; and may appoint one or more persons to assist such Registrar (with such designations, and in such local areas or throughout the State, as it may specify in that behalf, and may, by general or special order, confer on any such person or persons all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act. The person or persons so appointed to assist the Registrar and on whom any powers of the Registrar are conferred, shall work under the general guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar. They shall be subordinate to the Registrar, and subordination of such persons amongst themselves shall be such as may be determined by the State Government.On reading these two provisions [sections 3 and 3A], what becomes clear is that the Registrar is an authority that is superior to the Assistant Registrar. Section 10(2) of MOFA, 1963 clearly stipulates that once a Deed of Declaration has been executed and registered under the provisions of the MAO Act, intimation of the same has to be given to the Registrar as defined under the provisions of the MCS Act. It is only once both these conditions are fulfilled [namely execution and registration and thereafter initmation], would it be unlawful to register asociety. In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted fact that the intimation as contemplated under Section 10(2) [dated 4th October, 2011] was not given to the Registrar as defined under the MCS Act. This intimation can be found at page 903 (compilation Vol. V). This letter is admittedly addressed to the office of the Assistant Registrar and not to the Registrar as defined under the provisions of the MCS Act. This being the factual position, we find considerable force in the argument of Mr. Dhakephalkar that this intimation addressed to the Assistant Registrar, who being an authority subordinate to the Registrar, is no intimation at all as contemplated under Section 10(2) of the MOFA, 1963. It is now well settled that when a statute provides that a particular act needs to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner and no other. If one needs to refer to any decision in support of the aforesaid proposition a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Kerala Rare EarthMinerals Ltd. (2016) 6 SCC 323     would beIt is well settled that if the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then, in order to be valid the act must be done in the prescribed manner alone. (See CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, (2002) 1 SCC 633  ], Captain Sube Singh v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [Captain Sube Singhv. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (2004) 6 SCC 440  ] , State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358   : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 263 and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. [Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., (1978) 1 SCC 405  ] Absence of the Central Governments approval to reservation and a notification as required by Sectiontherefore, renders the State Governments claim of reservation untenable till such time a valid reservation is made in accordance with law. It is trite that the State Governments general executive power cannot be invoked to make a reservation dehors Sectionsupplied)39. This is more so, when one considers the language of Section 10(2) which makes it unlawful to register asociety, once a Deed of Declaration is executed and registered by the Promoter and intimation is given of the same to the Registrar as defined under the MCS Act. We are clearly of the view that looking to the language of Section 10(2) of the MOFA, 1963, the same has to be strictly complied with, especially taking into consideration that the flat purchasers lose their right to form asociety. In the facts of the present case, admittedly, an intimation as contemplated under Section 10(2) was not given to the Registrar as defined under the provisions of the MCS Act, but was given to the Assistant Registrar, who is an officer subordinate to the Registrar. If the Legislature intended that the embargo as set out in section 10(2) would apply only once the intimation was given to the Registrar, and who was the Superior Officer, then full effect has to be given to the said provision. This is not having been done, we are clearly of the view that there was no impediment / bar under Section 10(2) from considering the application of the flat purchasers for registering the Petitioner No.2 society. Consequently, we find that the order passed by Respondent No.2 cannot be sustained in law.40. Even otherwise, considering the provisions of the MOFA, 1963 read with the provisions of the MAO Act, we find that the order of Respondent No.2 cannot be sustained. Section 10(1) of MOFA, 1963 inter alia provides that, once a minimum number of persons required to form acooperative society ora company have takenthe promoter shallwithin the prescribed period submit an application to the Registrar for registration of the organisation of persons who take the flats as asociety or, as the case may be, as a company. The first proviso to Section 10(1) stipulates that if the Promoter fails within the prescribed period to submit an application to the Registrar for registration of the society as provided in Section 10(1), the Competent Authority (Section 5A of the MOFA, 1963) may, upon receiving an application from the persons who have taken flats from the said promoter, direct the District Deputy Registrar, Deputy Registrar or as the case may be Assistant Registrar concerned, to register the society. Section 10(2) provides that if any property consisting of building or buildings is constructed or to be constructed and the Promoter submits such property to the provisions of the MAO Act, by executing and registering a Declaration as provided by that Act, then the Promoter shall inform the Registrar as defined in MCS Act accordingly, and in such case, it shall not be lawful to form any cooperative society/company. Looking at the clear, unambiguous language of Section 10(2), what becomes clear is that before it becomes unlawful to form anySociety, two conditions have to be fulfilled namely, (i) the Promoter has to submit said property to the provisions of the MAO Act by executing and registering a Declaration as provided by that Act; and (ii) the Promoter informs the Registrar (as defined in MCS Act) about the same. Since, the first condition to be fulfilled under Section 10(2) is that the promoter should submit the property to the provisions of the MAO Act, by executing a registering a Declaration as provided by that Act, one would also have to refer to the provisions of the MAO Act. Section 2 of the MAO Act clearly stipulates that it applies only to a property, the sole owner, or all of the owners of which submit the same to the provisions of the MAO Act by duly executing and registering a Declaration. In other words, if the property that is submitted to the provisions of the MAO Act belongs to more than one owner, all would have to join in executing the Deed of Declaration, failing which the applicability of the Act itself would not arise. The word "apartment" has also been defined in Section 3(a) to mean a part of the property intended for any type of independent use, including one or more rooms or enclosed spaces located on one or more floors or part or parts thereof in a building, intended to be used for the reasons set out in the said definition. The word "building" is defined in Section 3(e) to mean a building containing of five or more apartments, or two or more buildings, each containing two or more apartments, with a total of five or more apartments for all such buildings, and comprising a part of the property. In turn "property" has been defined in Section 3(r) to mean the land, the building, all improvements and structures thereon, and all easements, rights and appurtenances belonging thereto, and all articles of personal property intended for use in connection therewith, which have been, or are intended to be, submitted to the provisions of the MAO Act.41. In the facts of the present case as set out earlier, the purported Deed of Declaration was registered by Respondent No.1 only on 28th September, 2011. However, much prior thereto, by the year 2009, Respondent No.1 had admittedly sold and disposed of about 80 % of the flats by executing individual sale agreements with the flat purchasers. In fact by the end of the year 2006 itself, Respondent No.1 had sold more than 10 flats in the said building. This being the factual position, looking at the provisions of Section 2 as well as the definitions as set out in Section 3 of the words "apartment", "building" and "property", we do not think that Respondent No.1 could have unilaterally executed a Deed of Declaration on 28th September, 2011 under the provisions of the MAO Act. This is for the simple reason that Section 2 clearly provides that the MAO Act applies only to a property, the sole owner or all of the owners of which submit the same to the provisions of the MAO Act. Looking to the definitions of the words "apartment", "building" and "property", as on 28th September, 2011 (the date on which the Deed of Declaration was executed) Respondent No.1 could not be said to be the sole owner of the property as it had already disposed of 80% of the flats in the building constructed by it. This being the position, this unilateral execution and registration of the Deed of Declaration (dated 28th September, 2011) wascontrary to the provisions of the MAO Act and could not be considered as a Declaration at all for the purposes of Section 10(2) of MOFA, 1963. We have reached this conclusion because the language of Section 10(2) clearly stipulates that if the promoter submits a property to the provisions of the MAO Act, the same is to be done by executing and registering a Declaration as provided by that Act. This clearly postulates that if the Declaration is not as per the provisions of the MAO Act, the bar under Section 10(2) [making it unlawful to form acooperative society ora company] would not be attracted.42. The Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 is an Act to provide for the ownership of an individual apartment in a building and to make such apartment heritable and transferable property. The MAO Act applies only if thefor its application set out in Section 2 thereof are fulfilled. The word "declaration", which finds repeated reference in Section 2 is defined in Section 3(j) to mean the instrument by which the property is submitted to the provisions of MAO Act, as provided by section 2, which words and figures were substituted for the words "as hereinafter provided" by Maharashtra Act 53 of 1974. The definition does not end here and says further, and such Declaration as from time to time may be lawfully amended. Once the Declaration is an instrument, then, for it to have complete legal effect, it has to be in conformity with Section 11 and by Section 13, its registration is compulsory. Therefore, when the legislature employs the words "as provided by that Act" in(2) of Section 10 of MOFA, it means that the provisions of the MAO Act are duly complied with. Therefore, as provided by that Act means in conformity and in accordance with the provisions of the MAO Act. Unless there is material before the Registrar, which would establish and prove that the promoter submitted the property to the provisions of MAO Act by executing and registering a declaration as provided by that Act, then alone it shall not be lawful to form anysociety of persons, who have taken the flats. The legislature has employed and used these words with a specific intent and purpose.43. The MAO Act provides for ownership of an individual apartment in a building and to make such apartment heritable and transferable property and that Act has been enacted in 1970. On the date of that enactment, the MOFA, 1963 was already in existence and in force. MOFA, 1963 seeks to regulate, in the State of Maharashtra, promotion of the construction, sale, management and transfer of flats on ownership basis. When the competent legislature realised that consequent on the acute shortage of houses in several areas of the State of Maharashtra, there were abuses, malpractices and difficulties relating to above matters and those are increasing, that it decided to step in and make the law. Once this is the purpose which is sought to be achieved and the MAO Act contemplating, by Section 14, removal from provisions of that Act, then, all the more we cannot place an interpretation on(2) of Section 10 of MOFA, 1963 which would either clash with the MAO Act or render it nugatory. Equally, we cannot place such an interpretation on the provisions of the MAO Act (the later Act), which would nullify the effect of MOFA, 1963 namely, the earlier Act. That Act is specifically referred to in the Schedule to the MAO Act and Section 27 thereof.44. Once we are of the opinion that the provisions of both enactments having more or less a common underlying theme, namely, to give legal recognition and status to an apartment as a property, make it heritable and transferable and equally its construction, sale, management and transfer needs to be regulated so as to enable the flat takers/purchasers to utilise and enjoy it fully, then an interpretation which will allow both to operate in their respective fields, must be placed on their provisions. No interpretation which creates disharmony or conflict between two such enactments can be placed for that would be destructive of the legislative regime. If the aim, object and purpose of both legislations is understood, then, there is no hesitation in rejecting the contentions of Mr. Chinoy that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was not lawful to register asociety. We are of the opinion that(2) of Section 10 would operate provided the promoter has submitted the property to the provisions of the MAO Act in terms thereof and that the information of the same is given to the Registrar. It is only in such cases that it shall not be lawful to form anycooperative society ora company. Mr. Chinoys arguments overlook the fact that there could be different and distinct legal entities that would be formed and in terms of(1) of Section 10. It could be acooperative society orcompany. It is formed by persons who have taken flats. It is the promoters obligation and duty to submit an application for registration of the organisation of persons who take the flats as asociety, or as the case may be, a company. The promoter is obliged to join in the application for membership of acooperative society orin case of a company even in respect of flats, which have not been taken or which remained unsold. However, the legislature has taken care not to deprive the promoter of his right to dispose of the remaining flats in accordance with the provisions of MOFA, 1963. Therefore, a balancing act has been performed. Just as there is a regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer of the ownership flats, equally, the right that is created in the promoter to dispose of the flats, which have not been taken by persons joining to form an organisation, remains unaffected and untouched. The principle of statutory interpretation, which harmonises and enables both statutes towithout any conflict or collusion ought to be placed, therefore, on the statutory provisions in question.45. In Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G. P. Singh, 14th Edition, the learned author, emphasises and points out the essence of the rule of harmonious construction. That is that none of the provisions should be reduced to "useless lumber" or "dead letter". That is not harmonious construction. These principles have also been applied in resolving the conflict between two different Acts as well. We have applied that very principle. We do not think that while holding as above, we have nullified the effect and impact of either of the statutes. There is no basis for the complaint that if the interpretation as suggested and placed by us is upheld, then, it will not be possible to submit the property to the MAO Act. We do not think that language of(2) of Section 10 gives any room for such complaint at all.46. We, therefore, find that Respondent No.2 had completely misdirected itself in rejecting the application for registration of the Petitioner on the ground that this purported Deed of Declaration was challenged in a suit that is pending in this Court. It was the duty of Respondent No.2 to give full effect to Section 10(2) of the MOFA, 1963 and to examine whether the Declaration executed and registered under the MAO Act was in consonance with the MAO Act before it came to the conclusion that there was a bar from considering the application of the Petitioners for forming asociety. This exercise, we find has not been undertaken by Respondent No.2 at all and he has completely abdicated his duty in this regard.47. We also find from the facts of the present case that the unilateral Declaration has been executed behind the back of the flat purchasers. When they purchased their flats, the respective flat purchasers were never informed that the property they were purchasing was going to be submitted to the provisions of the MAO Act. In fact, clause 24 of one of the agreements executed with the flat purchasers reads asThe Purchaser/s along with the other purchasers of premises in the said Residential Building shall join in forming and registering the Society or association of flat owners or Limited Company to be known by such name as the Promoter may decide and for this purpose also from time to time sign and execute the application for registration and/or membership and other papers and documents necessary for the formation and registration of the Society or Limited Company or an association of flat owners and for becoming a member, including theof the proposed Society and duly fill in, sign and return to the Promoter within 15 days of the same being forwarded by the Promoter to Flat Purchasers, so as to enable the Promoter to register the organization of the Flat Purchasers under Section 10 of the said Act, within the time limit prescribed by Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of the Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Rules, 1964. No objection shall be taken by the Purchaser/s if any changes or modifications are made in the draftor the Memorandum and/or Articles of Association or Declaration, as may be required by the Registrar ofSocieties or the Registrar appointed under the Apartment Ownership Act or the Registrar of Companies, as the case may be, or any other Competent Authority."48. In fact on reading this clause, it is clear that Respondent No.1 never categorically informed the flat purchasers that the property was being subjected to the provisions of the MAO Act. The indication would be otherwise. Further more, as mentioned earlier, the 1st Respondent had itself given an undertaking to the Municipal Commissioner on 11th June, 2010 (page 971 and 972 of the compilation Vol. V) that the ownership of the structure and other appurtenant user shall vest in all the owners and that the 1st Respondent is planning to form a proposed society of the said building which it proposes to construct. Further more, as late as 20th October, 2011, a receipt has been issued to one of the flat purchasers which indicates that part of the money that Respondent No.1 has received from said flat purchaser is towards formation of the society. The said receipt reads aswith thanks from Mr. Nitin Radheshyam AgarwalMrs. Nikita Nitin Agarwal a sum of Rs.26,95,504.00 (Rs. Twenty Six Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Five Hundred Four Only) vide cheque/ DD No. 293214603 dateddrawn on Wire Transfer Amount received towards flat cost addl. adm. chsg. legal chgs, install, of water, electricity, Gas connection, Formation of Soc. Dev. Chgs. Club Facility and Service Tax for 4 BHK facingin the building proposed to be called "Springs"."49. We, therefore, find that this unilateral execution and registration of the Deed of Declaration by Respondent No.1 submitting the property to the provisions of the MAO Act cannot be an impediment in Respondent No.2 considering the application of the Petitioners for formation of a