JUDGMENT : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. 1. By the present Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the Order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Competent Authority and the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, East Suburban, Mumbai in Application No. 32 of 2018 filed under Section 11 of The Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963 (“MOFA”). By the impugned Order, the Competent Authority issued Certificate of entitlement of unilateral Deemed Conveyance of the land bearing CTS No. 195/170 of village-Ghatkopar, Taluka-Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District, admeasuring 2047.71 sq. meter and building of the Petitioner-Society having ‘A’ ‘B’ or ’C’ and ‘D’ wings thereon. 2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the Deemed Conveyance Application, the Petitioner-Society has sought unilateral Deemed Conveyance of the land admeasuring 2843 sq. meter, whereas by the impugned Order, the Petitioner-Society has been allotted Deemed Conveyance of land only admeasuring 2047.71 sq. meter. The Petitioner has challenged the Order granting Deemed Conveyance only to the extent of not allotting the same for the entire area of 2843 sq. meter and granting only to the extent of 2047.71 sq. meter. 3. Before setting out the submissions of learned Counsel appearing for the rival parties and consideration of the same, it is necessary to set out certain factual aspects: (i) The subject matter of the present Writ Petition is amalgamated plot of land bearing Plot No. 149 admeasuring 1337.76 sq. meter and Plot No. 156 admeasuring 1504.98 sq. meter. These two plots were amalgamated in one plot aggregating to 2843 sq. meter (“said land”). (ii) The said land was transferred by one Parmeshwaridevi Gordhandas in favour of Respondent No. 2-Parmeshwaridevi Garodia Trust vide Deed of Trust dated 28.10.1970 (“the trust”). The said trust, being entitled to the said land constructed a building with four wings comprising of flats and shops in accordance with the plans approved by the MCGM including a building in the centre of the subject land known as “The Cold Storage Building.” The flats and various persons by the trust in or about 1973-74. (iii) The purchasers of the said flats/shops formed a Co-operative Housing Society namely “Kashmir Kunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.” on 12.10.1987. (iii) The purchasers of the said flats/shops formed a Co-operative Housing Society namely “Kashmir Kunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.” on 12.10.1987. The name of the Society was, thereafter, changed to “Garodia Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.” (iv) On 26.11.2018, the Petitioner-Society filed an Application with the Competent Authority seeking Deemed Conveyance. By the Order dated 15.06.2019, the Competent Authority dismissed the said Application, as not maintainable. (v) On 26.04.2022, the Petitioner-Society challenged the said Order by filing W.P. No. 2749 of 2022. A learned Single Judge by Order dated 10.07.2023, allowed the said Writ Petition and remanded back the said Deemed Conveyance Application for fresh cosideration by the Competent Authority. (vi) Respondent No. 7 had filed an Intervention Application dated 23.08.2023 in the said Deemed Conveyance Application on the basis of unregistered Gift Deed dated 19.04.2023. The Competent Authority by Order dated 29.08.2023, allowed the said Intervention Application of the Respondent No. 7. (vii) On 06.10.2023, the Competent Authority granted Deemed Conveyance in favour of the Petitioner-Society. However, the said Deemed Conveyance has been granted only with respect to the part of the land as set out herein above. As the Deemed Conveyance by the Petitioner-Society and same has been granted only to the extent of 2047.71 sq. meter, the Petitioner-Society has challenged the said order. 4. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Society for challanging the impugned Order raised the following contentions: (i) The Competent Authority has overlooked the directions given by a learned Single Judge by Order dated 06.10.2023 passed in WP No. 2749 of 2023. (ii) The Respondent No. 7 has no locus and therefore, the Competent Authority should not have granted Intervention Application of the Respondent No. 7 and he should not have been heard in the said Deemed Conveyance proceedings. (iii) During the pendency of the earlier Petition, being WP No. 2749 of 2022 when the arguments were being advanced in the said Writ Petition, Respondent Nos.3 & 4 executed a Gift Deed in favour of Respondent No. 7 without any authority and same was suppressed and not pointed out to the learned Single Judge. He further submitted that Respondent No. 7 filed an Application for adjudication of the unregistered Gift Deed dated 19.04.2023 on 29.08.2023 and on 21.09.2023, Respondent No. 7 paid stamp duty on unregistered Gift Deed. He further submitted that Respondent No. 7 filed an Application for adjudication of the unregistered Gift Deed dated 19.04.2023 on 29.08.2023 and on 21.09.2023, Respondent No. 7 paid stamp duty on unregistered Gift Deed. He pointed out the Order dated 25.09.2023 of the Collector of Stamps, Kurla, stating that the said Gift Deed cannot be registered. He submitted that inspite of this position, after the impugned Order dated 06.10.2023 has been passed by the Competent Authority granting Deemed Conveyance with respect to structure of the land, Respondent No. 3 executed deed of conveyance in favour of Respondent No. 7 on 23.11.2023 with respect to the plinth area of the said structure i.e. 364.24 sq. meter and appurtenant area 431.05 sq. meter. He submitted that all these steps are taken to defeat the rights of the Petitioner-Society. He submitted that in any case, it cannot be said that Respondent No. 7 has acquired ownership in the land under which or appurtenant area to the said structure. He submitted that the Competent Authority has passed the order without verification of the documents. (iv) He pointed out Clause 3 of the recitals of the agreement executed with the flat purchasers and submitted that the promoter i.e. Respondent No. 2 agreed that the entire area would be conveyed in favour of the Petitioner-Society. He, therefore, submitted that there is no question of retaining the area with the stand alone structure. He submitted that plans of the entire area with 4 wings and stand alone structure have been approved by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai together and calculation of the open space, parking requirements have been consisting of the building i.e. all the four wings and the said stand alone structure and on that count also no separate division of the plot is permitted. (v) Insofar as reliance of Respondent No. 7 on clause No. 15 of the agreement with individual flat purchaser is concerned, it is submitted that same is a common clause mentioned in all the agreements of flat purchasers and the same is applicable for unsold flats/premises. He submitted that in view of the execution of the Gift Deed, the said premises do not remain unsold and Clause No. 15 becomes inoperative. He submitted that in any case, said Clause No. 15 records the condition that purchasers of the said unsold flats will become members of the Petitioner-Society. He submitted that in view of the execution of the Gift Deed, the said premises do not remain unsold and Clause No. 15 becomes inoperative. He submitted that in any case, said Clause No. 15 records the condition that purchasers of the said unsold flats will become members of the Petitioner-Society. He, therefore, submitted that the Deemed Conveyance of the entire area should have been granted. (vi) He submitted that a copy of the registered deed of conveyance dated 23.11.2023 has been provided to the Petitioner- Society for the first time when affidavit-in-reply was filed. (vii) He submitted that Respondent No. 7 has relied on the Government Resolution dated 22.06.2018. However, as Respondent No. 7 has no locus, he cannot rely on the said Government Resolution. In any case, he submitted that same is applicable in case there is society for each building. He, therefore, submitted that the said G.R. has no application to the present case. (viii) He submitted that the Petitioner-Society is entitled for conveyance of the entire plot of the said land admeasuring 2843 sq. meter. (ix) The Competent Authority has passed the order without verification of the documents. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 7 raised the following contentions: (i) The said stand alone structure is now conveyed in favour of Respondent No. 7. He submitted that the same was disclosed to all the flat purchasers. He relied on Recital No. 10, Clause No. 3, 4 and 15 of the MOFA Agreement executed with flat purchasers. He submitted that the said clauses clearly contemplate that the buildings meant for purchasers of the flats/shops are different than the said stand alone structure. Same contemplates that the promotor would continue to be the owner of the said standalone structure and the ownership thereof would not vest in the Petitioner-Society. He submitted that as the promotor is the owner of the stand alone structure, the promotor is not required to become a member of the Petitioner-Society. (ii) He relied on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Grand Paradi Co-operative Hsg. He submitted that as the promotor is the owner of the stand alone structure, the promotor is not required to become a member of the Petitioner-Society. (ii) He relied on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Grand Paradi Co-operative Hsg. Society Ltd. vs. Mont Blanc Properties & Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2010 SCC Online Bom 608, where a learned Single Judge has held that the agreement entered into with the flat purchasers by the promotor continues to bind them at all times unless a case is made out that the consent was obtained through illegal means. He submitted that therefore, as it was clearly disclosed to the flat purchaser about the said stand alone structure, same cannot be included in the Deemed Conveyance in favour of the Petitioner- Society. (iii) He submitted that in the Application seeking Deemed Conveyance, the Petitioner-Society has suppressed various factors. It was suppressed that there was stand alone structure and therefore, the Petitioner’s Application was required to be dismissed. It is further submitted that it was also suppressed that Respondent No. 7 was the owner of the stand alone structure. He also submitted that it is also suppressed that in the Conveyance executed on 30.12.2014 between the Petitioner and the Promotor, the Petitioner had fairly accepted the fact that there was stand alone structure in the land in question which had constructed, being carpet area 10400 sq. feet to which the Promotor was entitled. (iv) He submitted that the Supreme Court has held that it is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the decision making to the court. He submitted that the Supreme Court has held that if a litigant is guilty of concealment of material facts, the Court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such a person. To substantiate this contention, Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel of Respondent No. 7 has relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors. vs. Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society, (2013) 11 SCC 531 and also on Oswal Fats and Oils Limited vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly, (2010) 4 SCC 728. (v) Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel of Respondent No. 7 has relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors. vs. Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society, (2013) 11 SCC 531 and also on Oswal Fats and Oils Limited vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly, (2010) 4 SCC 728. (v) Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 7 submitted that as per the settled legal position, the order granting Deemed Conveyance or even denying the same, does not conclude the issue of title. Therefore, an appropriate remedy for the Petitioner is to file a substantive Suit. He submitted that the jurisdiction of the competent authority under Section 11 of the MOFA is summary in nature. He relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Marathon Next Gen Realty Ltd. Mumbai vs. Competent Authority, District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mumbai, 2015 (5) Mh. L.J. 318 and also in the case of Mazda Construction Company vs. Sultanabad Darshan CHS Ltd. 2012 SCC Online Bom 1266. (vi) He submitted that the impugned Order has been passed on 06.10.2023 by which the Deemed Conveyance granted in favour of the Petitioner-Society is only of an area of 2047.71 sq. meter out of total area of 2843 sq. meter. Therefore, the Deed of Conveyance was executed by Respondent No. 3 in favour of Respondent No. 7 on 23.11.2023. He submitted that there was no impediment in executing the same. He submitted that since registered Deed of Conveyance is executed in favour of Respondent No. 7, same cannot be set aside by Respondent No. 1 under Section 11 of the MOFA. He submitted that therefore, proper remedy for the Petitioner is to file a substantive suit challening registered conveyance executed in favour of Respondent No. 7. (vii) He relied on the Judgment of a learned Single Judge in the case of ACME Enterprises vs. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies6 and submitted that Civil Suit is a proper remedy for the Petitioner. (viii) He submitted that calculation of area constructed on the entire plot as well as calculation of the land appurtenant thereto shows that the Competent Authority is right in holding that the Petitioner is entitled for an area of 2047.71 sq. meter and Respondent No. 7 is entitled for the plinth area of standalone structure i.e. 364.24 sq. meter and appurtenant area is 431.05 sq. meter and Respondent No. 7 is entitled for the plinth area of standalone structure i.e. 364.24 sq. meter and appurtenant area is 431.05 sq. meter and total land area of the said standalone structure is 795.29 sq. meter and carpet area of the said standalone structure is 10542 sq. meter. (ix) He, therefore, submitted that as the impugned order has been passed after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and hence, a well reasoned impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and therefore, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. 6. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out legal position as far as the scope of application filed under Section 11 of the MOFA seeking Deemed Conveyance. In the decision, in the case of ACME Enterprises (Supra) in paragraphs 30 and 31 held as follows: “30. From the above statutory provisions and enunciation, the position which emerges can be summarized as under. The authority to grant deemed conveyance is conditioned and controlled by the primary obligation of the promoter to convey to the organization of flat purchasers right, title and interest in the land and buildings, in accordance with the agreement executed under Section 4. Competent authority cannot convey more than what the promoter had agreed to convey under the agreement executed under Section 4. What competent authority is thus required to consider is, the extent of the obligation incurred by the promoter, whether the obligation to execute the conveyance became enforceable and whether the promoter committed default in, or otherwise disabled himself from, executing the conveyance. 31. The enquiry is thus of limited nature. The competent authority cannot delve into the aspects of title. Nor the finding of the competent authority precludes a party from agitating the grievance as to the entitlement of the organization of purchasers to have the conveyance, before the Civil Court. 31. The enquiry is thus of limited nature. The competent authority cannot delve into the aspects of title. Nor the finding of the competent authority precludes a party from agitating the grievance as to the entitlement of the organization of purchasers to have the conveyance, before the Civil Court. The remit of enquiry by the competent authority is, thus, whether the conditions stipulated for enforcement of the obligation to execute the conveyance have been satisfied and, if yes, order an unilateral deemed conveyance.” (Emphasis added) Thus, it has been held that the authority to grant Deemed Conveyance is conditioned and controlled by the primary obligation of the promoter to convey to the organization of flat purchasers right, title and interest in the land and buildings, in accordance with the agreement executed under Section 4. The Competent authority cannot convey more than what the promoter had agreed to convey under the agreement executed under Section 4. What competent authority is, thus, required to consider is the extent of the obligation incurred by the promoter, whether the obligation to execute the conveyance became enforceable and whether the promoter committed default in, or otherwise disabled himself from, executing the conveyance. The enquiry is thus of limited nature. It is also settled legal position that the competent authority cannot delve into the aspects of title. Nor the finding of the competent authority precludes a party from agitating the grievance as to the entitlement of the organization of purchasers to have the conveyance, before the Civil Court. The remit of enquiry by the competent authority is, thus, whether the conditions stipulated for enforcement of the obligation to execute the conveyance have been satisfied and, if yes, order an unilateral Deemed Conveyance. 7. Apart from the said ACME Enterprises (supra), for deciding this Writ Petition, it is also required to note the observations of a learned Single Judge (Coram: Arif S. Doctor, J.) in the Order dated 10.07.2023 passed in W.P. No. 2749 of 2022 by which the Application filed by the Petitioner-Society seeking Deemed Conveyance has been remanded to the Competent Authority for deciding the same afresh by setting aside the Order dated 15.06.2019. By the said Order dated 15.06.2019, the Competent Authority has dismissed the Application filed by the Petitioner-Society seeking Deemed Conveyance. The relevant portion of paragraph Nos. 23 & 24 read thus: “23. By the said Order dated 15.06.2019, the Competent Authority has dismissed the Application filed by the Petitioner-Society seeking Deemed Conveyance. The relevant portion of paragraph Nos. 23 & 24 read thus: “23. I have heard the Learned Counsel, considered the rival contentions as also the case law cited, perused the Impugned Order and I have no hesitation in holding that the present Writ Petition deserves to be allowed for the following reasons, viz. (A) It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the competent authority under MOFA albeit summary, is not ministerial. The competent authority has to therefore apply its mind to several aspects when deciding an Application for deemed conveyance including the Applicant’s eligibility and whether or not the promoter/developer has duly discharged its obligations in terms of Section 11 of MOFA. The aforesaid findings are apposite to the facts of the present case, since Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the Petitioner’s Application for deemed conveyance without so much as attempting to ascertain whether the Deed of Conveyance relied upon by Respondent No. 3 was in fact executed in accordance with the provisions of MOFA. (B) In this case Respondent No. 1 instead of considering the legality and validity of the Deed of Conveyance relied upon by Respondent No. 3 has instead looked the other way and proceeded to dismiss the application solely on the factum of its execution. Respondent No. 1 has neither considered much less dealt with the objections raised by the Petitioner in respect of the said deed of conveyance. As also observed by this Court in the case of Rusabh Shah (supra) this appears to be another unfortunate instance of the Competent Authority not following the law laid down by this Court and acting in a mechanical manner. (C) Further, prima facie the Conveyance relied upon by Respondent No. 3 could never be a document which was executed in compliance with the obligations of Respondent No. 2 as Promoter under MOFA since, (i) the Conveyance is not between Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner but has been executed only by Respondent No. 3, (ii) it is admittedly not a registered document (iii) the document itself makes reference to the dissolution of Respondent No. 2 and records that the beneficiaries all became owners of the said lands and (v) none of the other beneficiaries are signatories to the said document. (D) Additionally, the Application for Deemed Conveyance filed by the Petitioner was based upon the Agreement this Agreement, Respondent No. 2 is the Promoter who was to execute the conveyance in favour of the Petitioner under MOFA. This has admittedly not been done despite the passage of over 40 years. Thus, the Petitioner was well entitled to file the Application for Deemed Conveyance based upon this Agreement alone. This fact has also been completely ignored by Respondent No. 1. 24. I find that the present case is infact a classic example of why MOFA was enacted. Not only has the promoter has failed and neglected to convey the said property to the Petitioner-Society but has subsequently also attempted to diddle out the society from what in law should have vested with the society. Therefore I have no hesitation in allowing the present Writ Petition in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c).” (Emphasis added) Thus, the learned Single Judge while remanding the matter back to the Competent Authority has observed that despite passage of over 40 years, the Respondent No. 2-Trust i.e. the promotor has not executed the Deemed Conveyance in favour of the Petitioner-Society. It is also recorded in paragraph 24 that not only the promoter has failed and neglected to convey the said property to the Petitioner- Society but has subsequently also attempted to diddle out the society from what in law should have vested with the society. 8. Thus, the various contentions raised by the parties are required to be examined in the light of the law laid down in the ACME Enterprises (supra) as well as the directions issued by the learned Single Judge while remanding the Application filed by the Petitioner seeking Deemed Conveyance to the Competent Authority. 9. By the impugned Order, the Deemed Conveyance is granted only with respect to an area admeasuring 2047.71 sq. meter out of total area of 2843 sq. meter. The relevant discussion is in paragraph 10(K) of the impugned Order of the Competent Authority which reads as under: “(K) Hence I am of the opinion that applicant shall get the entitlement of land and building except the said stand alone structure and land beneath and appurtenant to it. meter out of total area of 2843 sq. meter. The relevant discussion is in paragraph 10(K) of the impugned Order of the Competent Authority which reads as under: “(K) Hence I am of the opinion that applicant shall get the entitlement of land and building except the said stand alone structure and land beneath and appurtenant to it. And also the applicant society and acquirer of said stand alone structure shall have undivided rights in the common areas on the said plot such as RG and internal roads etc. As per the contention and survey report submitted by intervener the plinth area of said stand alone structure is 364.24 sq. mtrs and appurtenant area is 431.05 sq. mtrs thus the total land area in respect of said stand alone structure is 795.29 sq. mtrs and carpet area of the said stand alone structure is 10542 sq. feet. After deducting the land of said stand alone structure the applicant society thus entitled for conveyance of land admeasuring 2047.71 sq. mtrs out of said plot of land bearing CTS No. 195/170 village Ghatkopar along with building of applicant society.” (Emphasis added) 10. Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 7 has supported the above findings of the Competent Authority on the basis of Rectial No. 10, Clause Nos. 3, 4, 10 & 15 of the MOFA Agreement executed by the Respondent No. 2-Promotor with the flat purchasers. The said clauses are reproduced herein-below for ready reference: “Recital 10 - The Sellers have informed the Buyer that they intend to construct twelve closed garages and about 5000 Sft more of built-up space on the said plots as and when permitted by the Municipal Corporation at any time before necessary additions alterations and revisions in the building plans now approved and also in the structures already erected, and that the prices of the premises in the said building have been fixed taking into consideration such anticipated further development of the plots and the income and profits likely to accrue therefrom and the Buyer has irrevocably granted his consent to the Sellers revising and altering the approved plans and making suitable alterations in the present structure so however as not to pre-judically affect the shape, area or location of the premises agreed to be acquired by him. 3. 3. No legal grant or demise of the said plot of land or of the building standing thereon or of any part thereof, nor any right title or interest in to or upon the said land or buildings or the said premises or any part thereof is hereby made or created in favour of the Buyer. The Buyer shall have no claim save and except to the said premises, and all common portions in the said plots and building shall remain the Sellers’ property until transfer thereof to the common organisation of premises-acquirers. The Sellers may sell transfer or assign all their right title and interest in the unsold premises without in any way affecting the rights hereby granted in favour of the Buyer in respect of the said premises. The property shall be conveyed and transferred only in favour of the Common Organisation of premises-acquirers as hereinafter provided. 4. The Buyer hereby confirms the correctness of the recital Clause 10 above and hereby grants his irrevocable consent to the Sellers revising or altering the plans of the said building so as to construct twelve closed garages and further built-up area of about 5000 Sft. at any time prior to 31st December 1977 without however affecting the location area of shape of the premises agreed. to be sold to the Buyer. The conveyance to be got executed in favour of the common organisation of the premises-acquirers by the Sellers- shall contain a suitable covenant to this effect. If nevertheless the Buyer and/or other premises-acquirers in the said building object to such further development of the property by the Sellers, the Buyers shall become liable to pay to the Sellers further 20% of the cost mentioned in Clause l above since the said price is fixed on a concessional basis in view of the benefit granted by the Buyer to the Sellers to further develop the said property fully as aforesaid and receive the accruing income therefrom. If however such further construction work is not permitted by the Municipal Corporation, without the premises-acquirers including the Buyer herein being responsible for the same, the right of the sellers to so develop the said property further shall lapse on 31st December 1977 and the Buyer shall in that event also not be liable to pay any increase in the price as aforesaid. 10. 10. The Buyer shall deposit with the Sellers as and when demanded a sum of Rs. 1001/- in one lumpsum or in instalments towards (a) cost of shares and entrance fees in the proposed common organistion, (b) costs charges and expenses of and incidental to the registration of the proposed common organisation aforesaid, (c) costs charges and expenses of preparing engrossing stamping and registering the agreement or agreements for sale of premises, deed of conveyance in favour of the common organisation, declarations and other deeds and documents to be executed by the present owner of the property, the Sellers, the Buyer/s of premises and/or the common organisation proposed relating to the said property or the premises therein, (d) and the entire professional and out-of-pocket costs of the Advocate of the Sellers in preparing and/or approving the documents aforesaid and all other incidental expenses. If however the said amount is not sufficient to meet all such expenses the Buyer shall pay to, the Sellers immediately on demand such further amount as may be estimated by the Sellers to be due from the Buyer. The entire stamp duty and registration charges, if any, payable on the Deed of Conveyance and other documents to be executed in favour of the common organisation shall be borne and paid exclusively by all acquirers of premises in the said building. The sale price of the said premises is calculated on the above basis and the Sellers are not liable to contribute anything towards any of the above costs charges and expenses. The Buyer shall on execution hereof pay to the Sellers Advocate a sum of Rs. 200/- as part-payment of the aforesaid costs charges and expenses, and shall pay further amounts as and when demanded by the Sellers. The Buyer shall in addition pay the stamp duty and registration charges hereof. 15. On completion of the building and sale of all units therein and after registration of the common organisation aforesaid, when the Sellers have received all their duties, conveyance of the said property. The Buyer shall in addition pay the stamp duty and registration charges hereof. 15. On completion of the building and sale of all units therein and after registration of the common organisation aforesaid, when the Sellers have received all their duties, conveyance of the said property. If however such common organisation is registered before the sale and disposal of all the premises in the said building the authority of the premises-acquirers and of their common organisation shall be subject to the overall authority and control of the Sellers over all or any of the matters concerning the said building, the construction and completion thereof and all amenities appurtaining thereto and in particular the Sellers shall be entitled to sell and dispose of the unsold premises as they deem fit or proper to any person of their choice, who is not disqualified to become a member of the common organisation. If all premises are not sold by the Sellers when such common organisation is got registered or even when the said property is conveyed to such common organisation, the Sellers shall hold such unsold premises in their names not as members of such common organisation but as absolute owners thereof, and shall not be subject to or governed by the bye-laws, rules and regulations including the tenancy regulations of such common organisation, and they shall have the unqualified and unrestricted right and authority to sell and dispose of such unsold premises to any person of their choice not disqualified to become a member of the common organisation under the bye-laws thereof, and the common organisation and/or its members being the Buyers of premises in the said building shall not object to any such sale or disposal of units by the Sellers nor shall it or they refuse to enrol acquirers of such unsold units from the Sellers after registration of the common organisation or the conveyance of the property in favour of such common organisation as members thereof. In spite of a conveyance of the said property being executed in favour of such common organisation, the premises remaining unsold on the date thereof shall not vest in such common organisation and the same shall be brought into and vest in the same only on the acquirers of such premises being enrolled as members of the common organisation and being given in consideration thereof shares and/or deposits receipts and/or loan stock bonds of equivalent value. The conveyance to be executed in favour of the common organisation shall contain appropriate covenants to this effect. In the event of the Sellers not being able to sell and dispose of any premises remaining unsold on the date of registration of the common organisation or on the date of conveyance of the property in favour of the common organisation on ‘ownership’ basis on terms and shall be at liberty and entitled to allow such premises to be used temporarily by any person of their choice on any non-permanent basis pending the disposal thereof on ‘ownership’ basis without obtaining the approval sanction or consent from the common organisation, and neither the Buyer nor the common organisation shall object to the use thereof by such persons. For the period of such use and occupation of such unsold premises by the Sellers through such persons, they shall pay to the common organisation only the actual outgoings in respect thereof on actual out-of-pocket basis, and they shall not be liable to contribue any amount towards sinking fund, repairs, water charges, goorkha and sweeper charges, etc. or for any fund provided for under the bye-laws rules and regulations or resolutions of the common organisation. If such premises shall remain unsold and unused, the Sellers shall pay to the common organisation only the municipal taxes, if any, payable in respect thereof.” (Emphasis added) 11. Recital 10 r/w. Clause No. 4 of the MOFA Agreement clearly show the same is regarding the development potential of the said land. The said clauses also show that the time upto 31.12.1977 is granted for exploitation of the said development potential. It is clearly stated that prices of the flats have been decided on the basis of availability of the said development potential. Thus, there is nothing to indicate that the MOFA agreement executed with the purchasers mentions that the said portion of the plot is not agreed to be conveyed. 12. It is clearly stated that prices of the flats have been decided on the basis of availability of the said development potential. Thus, there is nothing to indicate that the MOFA agreement executed with the purchasers mentions that the said portion of the plot is not agreed to be conveyed. 12. Clause No. 3 of the MOFA Agreement clearly shows that what is contemplated is that no right is created in favour of the flat purchasers except the premises or the flat which he has purchased. However, it is specifically recorded that all the common portions in transfer thereof to the common organisation of premises-acquirers. It is also clearly provided that the property shall be conveyed and trasferred only in favour of the Common Organisation of premises- acquirers as provided. Clause 10 specifically contemplates execution of the Deed of conveyance in favour of common organization. The most crucial clause is clause 15 of the MOFA Agreement. It is specifically provided that on completeion of the building and sale of all units therein and after registration of the common organisation aforesaid, when the Sellers have received all their dues, they shall obtain for such common organisation a proper conveyance of the said property. What is contemplated by Clause 15 is that in case, there are unsold premises then when the Society is formed as far as unsold premises are concerned, rights will be retained by the promotor. By no stretch of imagination, such type of clause can be read in a manner that it will defeat the statutory rights of the flat purchasers i.e. society of such flat purchaser of receiving Deemed Conveyance or Conveyance. What is contemplated by such Clause 15 is that with respect to unsold premises, the promotor has got right to sale the same or can retain the same. It is required to be noted that the flat purchasers agreements have been executed in the year 1973. The said Clause 15 which protects the rights of the developer regarding unsold premises cannot be read in a manner which will defeat the rights of the flat purchasers to form the society and to get the Deemed Conveyance executed in favour of such society which is their statutory right under the provisions of the MOFA. 13. In this particular case, it is required to be noted that the Petitioner i.e. the society of flat purchasers was formed on 12.10.1987. 13. In this particular case, it is required to be noted that the Petitioner i.e. the society of flat purchasers was formed on 12.10.1987. It is the statutory obligation of the Promotor i.e. Respondent No. 2-Trust and Rspondent Nos. 3 to 6 i.e. the beneficiaries of Respondent No. 2-Trust to ensure conveyance in favour of the Petitioner-Society within a period of four months from the registration of the society in terms of Section 11 of the MOFA r/w. Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of The Promotion of Construction etc.) Rules, 1964 (the “Rules”). Thus, the conveyance should have been executed in favour of the Petitioner on or before February 1988. As the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 failed to perform their statutory duties even after lapse of consideratble period, the Petitioner-Society had filed an Application for Deemed Conveyance on 26.11.2018. The said Application was dismissed by the Competent Authority on 15.06.2019. The Petitioner-Society by filing W.P. No. 2749 of 2022 challenged the said dismissal order passed by the Competent Authority. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 executed a Gift Deed in favour of Respondent No. 7 on 19.04.2023. It is significant to note that the said Gift Deed was purported to be executed on 19.04.2023 and the said W.P. No. 2749 of 2023 was after hearing extensively from time to time was reserved for passing orders by the learned Single Judge on Shah, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Society states that at no point of time, execution of this Gift Deed was brought on record before the learned Single Judge and it has not been disclosed even to the Petitioner. The Order dated 10.07.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge, by which the Order of the Competent Authority rejecting the Deemed Conveyance Application was set aside and the said Application was remanded back to the Competent Authority does not disclose that this Gift Deed was pointed out to the learned Single Judge. 14. It is further significant to note that on 24.08.2023, Respondent No. 7 had filed an Intervention Application before the Competent Authority on the basis of such purported unregistered Gift Deed dated 19.04.2022 and the Intervention Application was allowed on the basis of the said unregistered Gift Deed. 14. It is further significant to note that on 24.08.2023, Respondent No. 7 had filed an Intervention Application before the Competent Authority on the basis of such purported unregistered Gift Deed dated 19.04.2022 and the Intervention Application was allowed on the basis of the said unregistered Gift Deed. Thereafter, the impugned Order has been passed on 06.10.2023 granting Deemed Conveyance in favour of the Petitioner-Society excluding the area which has been allowed in favour of Respondent No. 7 as set out hereinabove. 15. A perusal of Clause 15 of the MOFA Agreement executed with the flat purchasers, on which Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 4 has heavily relied clearly shows that rights, if any, are to be retained by the promotor only with respect to unsold premises. Although it is tried to be argued by Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 7 that in the present case, in view of execution of the Gift Deed, the said premises cannot be treated as sold, however, what is contemplated by Clause 15 is creation of third party rights with respect to unsold premises. Assuming the said Gift Deed to be a valid document, as by the Gift Deed unsold premises as contemplated in Clause 15 of the MOFA Agreement have been transferred in favour of Respondent No. 7, it is clear that there are no unsold premises remaining as per Clause No. 15. Therefore, even assuming that the said Gift Deed is valid and legal document then also it is clear that once there are no unsold premises available, the promotor is duty bound to execute the conveyance. 16. Reliance is also placed on the Deed of Conveyance executed on 23.11.2023 executed by the Respondent No. 3 in favur of Respondent No. 7. The beneficiaries of Respondent No. 2 Trust are Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and therefore, the said conveyance is not legal. In any case, it will not affect the statutory rights acquired by the Petitioner- Society in the year 1988 to get the conveyance in their favour. 17. This is a case where the promotor sold various flats and shops to the purchasers in or about 1973. The society of such flat/shop purchaser have been formed on 12.10.1987. In any case, it will not affect the statutory rights acquired by the Petitioner- Society in the year 1988 to get the conveyance in their favour. 17. This is a case where the promotor sold various flats and shops to the purchasers in or about 1973. The society of such flat/shop purchaser have been formed on 12.10.1987. As per Section 11 of the MOFA Act r/w. Rule 9 of the MOFA rules, it is the responsibility of the promotor to execute conveyance in favour of the Society of flat purchasers within a period of four months unless specified. 18. A reading of the MOFA agreement executed with flat purchasers shows that the promotor could have retained the right only with respect to the flats/shops which are unsold and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that any plot or land can be retained by the promotor or as far as any plot area is concerned, 3 rd party interest could have been created. Thus, there is no substance in the submissions made by Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 7 that in view of the said stand alone structure and in view of the Gift Deed and the Conveyance Deed, rights are created in favour of Respondent No. 7 and therefore, the Application for Deemed Conveyance should be granted only by excluding the said area. 19. Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 has also raised the contention that the Petitioner has not disclosed the material facts in the Deemed Conveyance Application. It is his submission that the Petitioner-Society has not disclosed about the standalone structure, the Respondent No. 7 is the owner of the standalone structure and that there is an unregistered conveyance executed by the promotor in favour of the Petitioner-Society dated 30.12.2014 by excluding the standalone structure. However, it is to be noted that rights, if any, created in favour of the Respondent No. 7 are after filing of the Application by the Petitioner-Society seeking Deemed Conveyance i.e. during the pendency of earlier Writ Petition No. 2749 of 2022 and therefore, there is no question of disclosure of the same in the Application seeking Deemed Conveyance. As far as the conveyance dated 30.12.2024, admittedly, the same is not a registered document. Such type of document cannot be read into evidence and cannot be produced before any Court. As far as the conveyance dated 30.12.2024, admittedly, the same is not a registered document. Such type of document cannot be read into evidence and cannot be produced before any Court. The said conveyance is only executed by the Respondent No. 3 when the property belongs to the Respondent No. 2-Trust and the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are the beneficiaries of the Respondent No. 2-Trust. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the Petitioner-Society has not disclosed about this material fact. In fact, it is required to be noted that when an earlier Petition, being W.P. No. 2749 of 2023 was pending before this Court and when the matter was being heard, said purported Gift Deed was executed on 19.04.2022 and the same has been completely suppressed from this Court by the Respondents. In fact, therefore, the Respondents are guilty of the suppression. 20. In this particular case, various clauses of the MOFA Agreement executed with the flat purchasers clearly show that the entire plot area admeasuring 2843 sq. meter is agreed to be conveyed in favour of the Petitioner-Society. 21. It is also settled legal position that the order granting Deemed Conveyance does not conclude the issue of title and party claiming title can file a suit to establish the title. 22. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed by passing the following order. ORDER: (i) The Order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Competent Authority and the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, East Suburban, Mumbai, Mumbai in Application No. 32 of 2018 is quashed and set aside to the extent of granting Deemed Conveyance only for an area of 2047.71 sq. meter out of land bearing CTS No. 195/170 at village-Ghatkopar, Taluka-Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District instead of area of 2843 sq. meter. (ii) Accordingly, the said Application No. 32 of 2018 seeking Deemed Conveyance is allowed entirely and it is held that the Petitioner-Society is entitled to have unilateral Deemed Conveyance of the land bearing CTS No. 195 and 170 of village-Ghatkopar, Kurla totally admeasuring 2843 sq. meter. (iii) It is clarified that Respondent No. 7 is at liberty to file a suit for establishing his right on the basis of the said Gift Deed dated 19.04.2023. meter. (iii) It is clarified that Respondent No. 7 is at liberty to file a suit for establishing his right on the basis of the said Gift Deed dated 19.04.2023. All contentions of both the parties in that behalf are expressly kept open to be agitated in such a suit, if filed by the Respondent No. 7. (iv) It is clarified that the conveyance which has been executed on 23.11.2023 by the Respondent No. 3 in favour of Respondent No. 7 is on the basis of the impugned Order dated 06.10.2023 of the Competent Authority which has been quashed and set aside by this Order and therefore, the same will have no effect and of no consequences. 23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. 24. At this stage, a request is made on behalf of Respondent No. 7 to stay the operation of this order. However, the factual position on record shows that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have played fraud on this Court and has not pointed out to the learned Single Judge, who decided W.P. No. 2749 of 2023 about the execution of the Gift Deed. The Respondent No. 7 is the beneficiary of the said fraud. Apart from that this is a case where the Promotor-Respondent No. 2 and Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 i.e. beneficiaries of the Respondent No. 2-Trust have failed to perform their statutory duty of execution of conveyance under the MOFA in favour of the Petitioner-Society for last about 40 years. In any case, as per settled legal position, Order granting Deemed Conveyance does not conclude the issue of title. Therefore, no case is made out for stay of this order.