03 July,2011 07:00 AM IST | | Varun Singh
Residents of a building in Santacruz allege the builders did not register the society as he wanted control over FSI
The residents of Summer Villa, a ground plus six-storey building with 21 flats and six shops, constructed in 1985 in Santacruz (East), are still awaiting the formation of a cooperative housing society. Residents allege that the builders, Safari Builders, are eyeing the extra Floor Space Index and want to construct housing stock.
The 26 year-old Summer Villa building in Santacruz (East)
After waiting for 22 years, the residents finally took matter into their own hands in 2007 and approached the registrar's office to get the society registered. On June 20 this year, the divisional registrar's office directed the concerned office to register the society.
However, builder Badruddin Patel filed an appeal against the direction given by the registrar's office with cooperation minister Harshvardhan Patil. The matter came up for hearing at the Mantralaya on Saturday, the judgment for which is expected in a few days.
Badruddin Patel claims that he has always urged the residents to form the society but they failed to offer him co-operation. Housing experts feel it was the duty of the builder to form the society, with or without residents' cooperation.
"A builder is supposed to form a housing society within four months of the sale of 60 per cent flats under the Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act, 1963.
If the builder fails to do the same, the residents can go ahead and get the society formed on their own. Twenty six years is way too long for any builder to form a society," said Sridhar Sharma of Revathi Memorial, an NGO that deals with housing issues.
When residents of the building agreed to form a co-operative society in 2007, they found that the builder formed a condominium (an association of flats) and reserved all rights with himself. This, they allege, was done without their consent.
Anjali Damania, a resident, said, "The builders formed the condominium and reserved all rights, which means that the terrace and all the FSI would belong to them." Sunil Seth, another resident said, "The divisional registrar passed an order for us to form the society on June 21.
u00a0
However, the builder filed an appeal with the minister stating that the order was not legal and requested a hearing with him. The minister gave us a patient hearing and has asked us to file our reply within seven days."
Patel of Safari Builders, said the non formation of the society wasn't his fault. "All my accounts are clear. However, the residents weren't furnishing documents related to the registration.
Hence, I couldn't form the society, but I went ahead and formed a condominium where the right of every resident is protected. I am not just a builder. I have flats in the building too, so technically I am also a member of the society," he said.
Patel rejected allegations of wanting to keep the building under his control. "I formed a condominium but I am doing no wrong. I am working for the benefit of all residents," he claimed.
However, according to Sharma, if a majority of residents are not in favour of a condominium, they can proceed to the registrar by appointing a chief promoter and get their society registered.
u00a0
"All the residents of the building do not have to abide by the builder. If the residents do not want to go with what the builder has decided, they can unite.
If they prove their majority, they can go ahead with whatever suits them, in this case, by get a housing society registered with the consent of the most of the society members," he said.
