(iii) Defendant No. 1 is prevented from establishing an additional structure above the court of appeal, namely “Madhu Vihar Scheme”, in STQ No. 1068/1, with an area of 6071 square metres in Kandivali (West), Mumbai, without the agreement of the persons with whom it has entered into agreements to take over housing in the building built on the land. “The provisions of the Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court`s decision, would leave no doubt that the legal prohibition on the developer modifying the structure of a dwelling to be purchased in accordance with section (i) of subsection (1) of section 7 and making other modifications or additions to the structure of the building in accordance with clause (ii) may be lifted only subject to disclosure by the developer of the project or plan. The prior consent provided for in Section 7(1) shall be informed consent. Informed consent is given voluntarily after a home buyer has been informed by full and complete disclosure of the project or scheme that the developer intends to implement. The consent provided for in section 7 (1) is therefore a specific consent related to the project or scheme of the developer to be carried out. The Supreme Court`s intervention in Jayantilal Investments struck a balance between the rights of the developer on the one hand and that of a home buyer on the other. There is a legal embargo on any modification either in a single apartment or with regard to the structure of the building after the disclosure of the plans and specifications of the building. This embargo was put in place by the legislator in particular so as not to put under the type of abuse that took place. The lifting of the embargo is subject to prior agreement. The lifting of the embargo must be strictly limited to the parameters provided for by the legislator and, in this context, the Supreme Court has ruled that consent can be considered valid if the developer of the entire project he is to carry out has disclosed in full.
Designed in this way, there is no doubt that a developer/promoter does not have the right to rely on general consent. To make such general consents work would null and neasing the public order underlying the provisions of section 7(1) in the Supreme Court`s interpretation. It is a principle of legal interpretation according to which the interpretation that the Court of Justice gives to a law must be targeted in order to achieve the objective and intention of the legislator. The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, is a law that regulates the promotion of construction, sale and administration as well as the transfer of housing on the basis of ownership. The preamble states, inter alia, that the Land Government was aware that due to an acute lack of housing, there were “various abuses, abuses and difficulties related to the promotion of the construction, sale, management and transfer of housing on the basis of ownership”. The legislator found that such abuses not only existed, but increased. In this context, the Court of Justice must adopt an appropriate interpretation of the law and renounce an interpretation which would correspond to the legislator`s objective. (Highlighted only here) (A) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act (1963), ss.7(1) (ii), 7 (A) (as inserted by Amendment of 1986) – Additional construction – If such construction is not part of the layout, permission in accordance with page 7 would be required. .