After due consideration and taking an overall view of the matter, Court is inclined to grant relief to the petitioners for more than one reason. Firstly, the building was constructed by respondent No.3. After completion of construction, respective flats were handed over to the petitioners and others. Petitioners have stated that they are in occupation of their respective flats since 2005. The flats were inspected and verified by GMC authority whereafter holding numbers were issued. Secondly, during the construction of the building, no deviation was noticed or pointed out by the GMC. As a matter of fact, even after completion and before issuance of completion certificate, no deviation was pointed out by the GMC. At the time of scrutiny and verification before issuance of holding number, there was no indication by the GMC that there was deviation in the construction of the building. Thirdly, a portion of the building was sought to be demolished all on a sudden on 17.12.2009 which was rightly interfered with by this Court. Fourthly, any consequence of deviation or rather non-compoundable deviation, if any, would have to be borne not by respondent No.3, the builder, but by the flat owners who had to arrange finances from various sources to have a
