HC: Calling buyers ‘special patrons’ cannot take away their rights to building conveyance

The Bombay High Court ruled that flat buyers are protected under MOFA, dismissing a challenge to their rights despite being labeled "special patron members."

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has ruled that simply calling flat buyers “special patron members” does not change the fact that they are flat purchasers under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA). Nor does this label take away their legal right to demand conveyance of the land and building.

HC: Calling buyers ‘special patrons’ cannot take away their rights to building conveyance

The court upheld a deemed conveyance granted almost ten years ago to the Harshad Co-operative Housing Society. It said the “special patron” tag was only a nominal title “without any substance,” especially since the buyers were never given basic rights that come with corporate membership, such as voting or attending meetings. In reality, they had always acted as ordinary flat buyers protected by MOFA.

Justice Amit Borkar held that MOFA clearly applied to this housing project and that the society’s deemed conveyance application was legally valid.

The dispute relates to two buildings, Harshad B and Harshad C, constructed in the early 1980s. Though buyers received possession and a co-operative housing society was registered in 2002, the conveyance of the property was never executed. In 2013, the society approached the Competent Authority under Section 11 of MOFA, which granted them a deemed conveyance.

The petitioner, Lokmanya Pan Bazar Association, challenged this order. It argued that the Competent Authority misunderstood the relationship between the parties. According to the petitioner, the flat buyers were not “flat takers” under MOFA, but merely “Special Patron Members” of the petitioner-company, with no promise that the land or building would ever be transferred to them.

The petitioner also claimed that the development agreement never mentioned transferring title to any co-operative society. It insisted that the land had always belonged to the company and that agreements with buyers made it clear that no ownership rights would pass to them. On this basis, the petitioner said it had no duty to convey the property and that the Competent Authority could not legally transfer title.

Court’s findings

The High Court examined the agreements signed with the purchasers and found that each document clearly stated that the transaction was governed by MOFA. Justice Borkar noted that the agreements specifically said they “shall always remain subject to MOFA,” meaning parties could not later avoid the law by using different labels or descriptions.

On the “Special Patron Member” tag, the court pointed out that buyers were never given any rights normally enjoyed by members of a company. Since they had no voting powers or participation rights, the court said the term had no real meaning and could not override their statutory protection as flat buyers.

The court also observed that the housing society was formed and registered in 2002, and the petitioner knew this at the time. For over a decade, the society had been maintaining the buildings, paying expenses and managing the premises. Meanwhile, the petitioner did not act as an owner in any practical sense. The court said that challenging the society’s existence after so many years was “too late” and could not be accepted.

Justice Borkar held that the Competent Authority acted within its powers and correctly granted deemed conveyance in 2013. Since no legal error was shown, the High Court dismissed the petition and refused to stay the judgment. The petitioner has been ordered to pay ₹50,000 as costs to the society within eight weeks.