ARUNKUMAR H SHAH HUF versus AVON ARCADE PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1350 · Decided: 21-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1350 : 2025 INSC 524
Arunkumar H Shah HUF 
v. 
Avon Arcade Premises 
Co-Operative Society Limited & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 5377 of 2025)
21 April 2025
[Abhay S Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the judgment passed 
by the High Court affirming the order of the competent authority 
issuing certificate of deemed conveyance in respect of a plot to 
first respondent.
Headnotes†
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of 
Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Act) 1963 – s.11 – 
Promoter to convey title, and execute documents, according to 
agreement – Scope of power of competent authority u/s.11 – 
Interference with the order granting deemed conveyance – 
Deed of dissolution between the parties and larger plot 
partitioned between L (L plot) and A (A plot) – L took over the 
firm as sole proprietor and it was provided that if L transfers his 
interest in favour of flat purchasers, perpetual lease in favour 
of the appellant or its nominees in respect of A plot would be 
executed – 10th respondent firm constituted with L as one of 
its partners, L brought in L Plot as his capital contribution to 
the firm – 10th respondent constructed building and entered 
into flat purchase agreements with flat purchasers – First 
respondent-co-operative society of flat purchasers in the 
building constructed on L Plot filed application u/s.11(3) 
seeking deemed conveyance of L Plot along with the portion 
of A Plot – Competent authority granted ex parte deemed 
conveyance in respect of the larger plot, on the condition of 
the first respondent executing a permanent lease in respect of 
A Plot in favour of the appellant or its nominees – Thereagainst, 
appellant filed writ petition – High Court confirmed the order 
of the competent authority – Correctness:
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
1351
Arunkumar H Shah HUF v.  
Avon Arcade Premises Co-Operative Society Limited & Ors.
Held: MOFA is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect home 
buyers and the provisions of s.11 are for the benefit of the flat 
purchasers – In writ jurisdiction, the Court should not interfere with 
the order granting deemed conveyance u/s.11(4), unless the order is 
manifestly illegal – Writ court should generally be slow in interfering 
with such orders because notwithstanding the order u/s.11(4), the 
remedy of aggrieved parties to file a civil suit remains open – On 
facts, clause of deed of dissolution provides for the execution of a 
lease in respect of the A plot in favour of A by L or a cooperative 
society formed after the construction of new buildings by L – This 
was to protect the interests of the appellant – Deed of partnership 
shows that 10th respondent had no right over the property allotted 
to the appellant under the deed of dissolution – 10th respondent 
is the lessor of the appellant – Effect of the order of competent 
authority is that there shall be a deemed conveyance in favour of 
the first respondent in respect of the entire larger plot subject to 
the condition of executing a permanent lease deed in favour of the 
appellant or its nominees – First respondent, after a conveyance in 
its favour, steps into the shoes of the appellant’s lessor – In view 
of the fact that deed of dissolution is binding, the appellant cannot 
object to the condition of the first respondent executing a lease 
incorporated in the certificate – To protect the appellant’s interest, 
the impugned order and the certificate provide for the execution 
of a permanent lease in favour of the appellant – Thus, there will 
be a perpetual lease executed by the first respondent in favour 
of the appellant or its nominees – No fault can be found with the 
order of the competent authority and the impugned order of the 
High Court – Substantial justice has been done by protecting the 
appellant’s rights as a perpetual lessee with a right to develop 
the A plot – Thus, interference in writ jurisdiction not warranted. 
[Paras 29, 31, 32, 34-36]
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion 
of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Act) 1963 – 
s.11 – Promoter to convey title, etc., and execute documents, 
according to agreement – Scope of power of competent 
authority u/s.11: 
Held: Quasi-judicial powers have been conferred upon the 
competent authority while dealing with applications u/s.11(3) – 
However, proceedings before the competent authority u/s.11(3) 
are of summar

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.