JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. The order under challenge in this Petition is an order granting deemed conveyance in favour of Respondent No.1 - Society under the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1963 (for short 'MOFA'). It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that deemed conveyance has been granted contrary to the agreement entered into with the fat purchasers. One such agreement dated 15/02/2014 is at page 365 of the paperbook. He relied upon clause 12.1 of the agreement which reads thus : "12.1 After the development of the Entire Land is completed and after the said Ultimate/Apex Body is formed and registered and after all the different premises in the said building/s have been sold and disposed-of by the Developer and after the Developer has received all dues payable by the allottees of different/various premises in the said building/s to the Developer, the final Transfer Deeds of the said land and/or other lands and the building/s constructed thereon shall be executed within 9 months thereafter by the Developer, the Consenting Party and the Confirming Party in favor of such Ultimate/Apex Body and such Transfer Deeds shall be in the form as may be prepared by the Advocates of the Developer" 2. Placing reliance on the said clause, learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that in terms of the provisions of the MOFA, full disclosures have been made under the said agreement. He submits that the statutory and mandatory provisions of MOFA have been duly complied with. It is his submission that the agreement, particularly clause 12.1 contemplates the formation & registration of federal body after the development of the entire land is completed. According to him, even a time limit of 9 months is stipulated in clause 12.1. The agreement has been duly signed by fat purchasers and therefore the Petitioners - developer as well as the fat purchasers are bound by clause 12.1 of the agreement. In his submission none of the provisions of MOFA are violated and clause 12.1 cannot be said to be contrary to any of the provisions of MOFA as the Petitioners are still bound to execute the concerned transfer deeds of the said land in terms of clause 12.1 in favour of the Ultimate/Apex body. In his submission none of the provisions of MOFA are violated and clause 12.1 cannot be said to be contrary to any of the provisions of MOFA as the Petitioners are still bound to execute the concerned transfer deeds of the said land in terms of clause 12.1 in favour of the Ultimate/Apex body. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Society has been granted area more than what they are entitled to under fat purchasers agreement by virtue of deemed conveyance. Even this aspect, according to him, has not been considered by the Competent Authority. 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent - Society on the other hand extensively relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayantilal Investments Vs. Madhuvihar Co-op. Housing Society and ors. (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 220. He submits that agreement under MOFA has been entered into and that clause 12.1 of the said agreement is completely void and contrary to the mandate of the provisions of the MOFA. It is his submission that the Society has already been formed and therefore in terms of the provisions of the MOFA, Society is entitled to get the deemed conveyance in their favour. According to him, 7 buildings are constructed on 6 Hector and 73 R of land. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. I have gone through clause 12.1 of the agreement. The agreement has been entered into under the provisions of the MOFA between the Petitioners - developer and fat purchasers. In terms of provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, the Society has been duly registered. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jayantilal Investments (supra) and having regard to the provisions of the MOFA, the Society is entitled to deemed conveyance. Even under clause 12.1 of the said agreement, it was for the developer to take steps to form an Ultimate/ Apex body whereupon the transfer deeds have to be executed in favour of the Ultimate/ Apex body. Till the time of the passing of the impugned order, no effective steps appears to have been taken by the developer to form Ultimate/ Apex body. Till the time of the passing of the impugned order, no effective steps appears to have been taken by the developer to form Ultimate/ Apex body. In my opinion, mere existence of clause 12.1 in the agreement will not come in the way of Respondent No.1 getting the deemed conveyance in their favour as the Society is duly formed and in view of the mandatory provision of MOFA. If the Petitioners - developer has any dispute as to the excess area conveyed in favour of the Respondent No.1 - Society or any other contentious issues, it is always open for the Petitioners - developer to fle a substantive Suit before appropriate Civil Court. 5. This Court in the case of Mazda Construction Company Vs. Sultanabad Darshan CHS Ltd. 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1266 and in the case of Angeline Randolph Pereira & ors. Vs. Suyog Industrial Estate Premises Co- operative Society Ltd. and ors. 2018(6) ALL MR 729 has held that in the writ jurisdiction and in the garb of examining the legality and correctness so also validity of deemed conveyance, the Court cannot examine the issues which are essentially disputed. The Petitioners can bring a substantive suit on title or otherwise before the competent Civil Court. In this view of the matter and considering the law laid down in the case of Mazda Construction Company (supra) & in the case of Angeline Randolph Pereira & ors.(supra) , I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) The Petitioners would be at liberty to file a substantive Suit for adjudication of title and appropriate reliefs if not already fled in respect of the property in question. (ii) The same can be decided independently without being influenced by the fact that an order of deemed conveyance of the property in question is passed by the Competent Authority. 6. Keeping all contentions open, the Petition is rejected. 7. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioners requested that ad-interim relief granted by this Court be continued for a period of 8 weeks. 8. Request is seriously opposed by learned Senior Advocate. 9. Considering that the ad-interim relief was granted as far back as on 06/02/2020 and has been operating since then, in the interest of justice, the same is continued for a period of 8 weeks from today. 8. Request is seriously opposed by learned Senior Advocate. 9. Considering that the ad-interim relief was granted as far back as on 06/02/2020 and has been operating since then, in the interest of justice, the same is continued for a period of 8 weeks from today. It is made clear that Civil Court will not be influenced by the grant of ad-interim order passed by this Court and question of granting interim/ad-interim relief shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. 10. Writ Petition is disposed of.