A civil court in Mumbai has delivered a landmark verdict, directing a developer to return possession of a flat to a non-resident Indian (NRI) businessman, nearly two decades after he discovered his property was sold illegally to another party. The court emphasized that if the builder fails to comply, the possession will be executed through court officers.
The Long Legal Battle for a Mumbai Flat
The case was filed in 2010 by businessman Suresh Basantani against Siddhivinayak Builders, its proprietor, and three others. According to the suit, Basantani had purchased a flat on the 14th floor of a building in Dahisar, Mumbai, in 1997 for Rs 7.76 lakh through a formal sale agreement.
He was given possession in 2002, after which he renovated the apartment and returned to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where he resided. The shocking discovery came in 2005 when Basantani visited Mumbai and found the locks of his flat changed. Two other individuals were residing in the property.
Developer's Defence and Court's Scrutiny
During the trial, the developer firm and its proprietor argued that Basantani had failed to pay the entire amount owed, leading them to cancel the original sale agreement and subsequently sell the flat to others. However, the court found this defence lacking.
Judge B D Pawar of the Dindoshi city civil court, in the order passed on December 19, noted that the original 1997 sale agreement was produced and was not disputed by the builder. The court established a clear timeline of ownership.
"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," the judge stated in the order.
Verdict: A Victory for the Original Owner
The court declared the subsequent sale agreement made by the builders in February 2005 with the new occupants as "illegal, null and void." Consequently, it created no legal title for those parties. The judge ruled that Basantani is legally entitled to be granted possession of the flat.
While the NRI businessman had also raised claims under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963, the court noted that these specific obligations were not conclusively proved in this instance. Nonetheless, the verdict was decisively in his favour.
In addition to ordering the return of the flat, the court directed Siddhivinayak Builders to pay the cost of the lawsuit to Suresh Basantani, marking the end of a protracted legal struggle for the NRI.
This case highlights the critical importance of proper documentation and the legal recourse available to property owners, especially NRIs who may be away from their assets for extended periods.
