9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nauthorized structures, which are in violation of the approved plans, are removed. In the absence of these documents, the Appellants would not be in a position to substantiate their case that they are unable to obtain the Occupancy Certificate, and comply with the directions issued by the District Forum. The State Commission was in error by rejecting the Application filed by the Appellants under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC by merely stating that the documents are not necessary . The said Order is an unreasoned one. The State Commission must have taken a holistic view of the matter - the Interim Order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the State Commission is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the State Commission to take the additional d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were sold to various purchasers on ownership basis. The flat owners formed the Respondent Housing Society viz. M/s Tejas Cooperative Housing Society. 2.2. The Respondent Housing Society filed Consumer Complaint No. 570 of 2008 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai SubDistrict. It was alleged that the Appellants/Opposite Parties had failed to supply service amenities to the members of the Respondent Housing Society, failed to obtain the Occupancy Certificate from the Municipal Corporation, and execute the Conveyance Deed in favour of the society. The District Forum partly allowed the Consumer Complaint vide Order dated 27.02.2013. It was declared that the Appellants had failed to su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istence after the filing of the Appeal i.e. (i) Letter dated 08.08.2013 from their Architect to the Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ( MCGM ) enclosing the plans of all the floors, and requested for issuance of the Occupancy Certificate; (ii) Reply by the MCGM dated 26.08.2013, wherein it was stated that as per the visit done, there was unauthorized enclosure of elevation features by occupants which was violative of the last approved plans dated 02.07.2001. The Appellants were directed to remove the unauthorized structures along with compliance of requisite conditions. 2.5. The State Commission vide Interim Order dated 10.12.2015 held that these documents were not necessary, and rejected the Applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge, or could not even after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, (2015) 17 SCC 713. 3.3. These documents are of relevance to establish that the Appellants are not in a position to obtain the Occupancy Certificate from the MCGM until the unauthorized structures, which are in violation of the approved plans, are removed. In the absence of these documents, the Appellants would not be in a position to substantiate their case that they are unable to obtain the Occupancy Certificate, and comply with the direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
