20 yrs later, court tells developer to return possession of flat to NRI businessman

During the trial, the developer firm and its proprietor said the businessman had failed to pay the entire amount owed to them and hence the sale agreement with him was cancelled and the flat sold to others.

A civil court directed a developer to return the possession of a flat to an NRI businessman who had found in 2005 that it was sold illegally to someone else. The court said that if this was not done, he will be entitled to get it through the officer of the court.

The businessman, Suresh Basantani, had filed a suit in 2010 against the developer Siddhivinayak Builders, its proprietor and three others. In his suit, he said that he had bought the 14th floor flat in Dahisar in 1997 by executing an agreement of Rs 7.76 lakh.

He was given the possession of the flat in 2002 after which he renovated it and returned to UAE where he resided. When he came back to Mumbai in 2005, he found that the lock of the flat was changed and two others were residing in it. In his suit, Basantani said that he came to know that the developers had in 2005, entered into a sale agreement with the two residing in the flat and sold them the flat illegally.

“It is admitted position that the Agreement for Sale in favour of the plaintiff is prior in time. As defendant Nos.1 and 2 have already transferred the title of suit flat in favour of plaintiff, they could not transfer it again in favour… Therefore, Agreement for Sale executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 creates no title in their favour. The Agreement for Sale dated 11.02.2005 is illegal, null and void,” Dindoshi city civil judge B D Pawar said in the order passed on December 19.

It said that the businessman was entitled to be granted possession of the flat. While he had also claimed that the developer firm had not complied with obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1963, the court said that it was not proved.

The court also directed the developer to pay the cost of the suit to the businessman.