For the Respondents : Mr.Uday B. Wavikar, Mr.H.D. Shetty and Ms.Sudha Gandhi, Advocates Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against opposite parties 1 & 2 (petitioners herein) and opposite parties No.4-7 (Respondents No.2-5 herein). Opposite party No.3 is another partner of opposite party No.1. Briefly stated the facts are that petitioners are the registered partnership firm and are promoters and developers of property bearing Cadastral Survey No.1357, Mahim Division on which respondent/complainant society’s building has been constructed by them. The point in dispute is as to who has the terrace rights on the building ? According to the petitioners, it is the petitioners who are entitled to place and receive the proceeds of the hoardings, as the petitioners had kept that right specifically reserved for themselves under Clause 27 of the Agreement. As against this, case of the respondent society is that it is the society, who has the terrace rights and is entitled to place and receive the proceeds of the hoardings being the owners and managers of the building/society. District Forum, vide its order dated 17.7.2008 passed an interim order in the following terms : “Ad-interim application dated 1.4.2008 filed by the complainant is allowed partly in the following terms : 1. Opponent No.7 is directed to deposit the future amount to be paid in respect of hoardings erected by them on the terrace of the building i.e. Meher Manzil for the period from August 2008 till the decision of the original Complaint bearing No.CMDF/CC/28/2008 with this Forum. 2. Opponent No.7 is directed to give statement of accounts of the money paid by Opponent No.7 form July 2006 to July 2008 in respect of hoardings erected by them on the terrace of Meher Manzil building. 3. Opponent No.1 & 2 are directed to give statement of accounts of the amount received by them from Opponent No.7 from July 2006 to July 2008 in respect of hoardings erected on Meher Manzil building by Opponent No.7.” Aggrieved against this order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. State Commission, in its order, has relied upon its own order in Pushpendra Complex Co-op. Housing Society vs. Abhay Jain & Ors. in First Appeal No.628/2005 decided on 13.4.2007, in which it has been held that after registration of the Co-operative society, residential FSI will remain with the society and not with the builder. We are not inclined to interfere with the interim order passed by the District Forum, which has been affirmed by the State Commission. Dismissed. Next date of hearing before the District Forum is 14.12.2009. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the District Forum on 14.12.2009. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the District Forum to dispose of the complaint within 4 months starting from 14.12.2009. District Forum is directed to pass the final order without being influenced by any of the observations made by the State Commission or in the present order. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents are obstructing the display of the hoarding. Counsel for the respondent, after taking instructions from the respondent, who is present, states that the respondents shall not obstruct the display of hoardings for which access shall be provided. All contentions are left to the parties.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | | 
