mumbai refusing leniency to builders harun umatiya and moiddiin umatiya who have been convicted of cheating a flat buyer of rs 45 lakh in 1998 metropolitan magistrate nilesh v bansal said the accused knew that sale deed cannot be registered unless valid permission is obtained from municipal authorities the accused have dishonestly concealed the fact of absence of valid permission to construct this fact shows the intention of the accused to deceive the informant right from the beginning of the agreement the magistrate saidthe flat buyer ravindra joshi had complained to the meghwadi police station in 2007the accused in their defence submitted that due to some reasons beyond their control the construction could not be completed and therefore an offence of cheating cannot be made at the most the accused are only liable to a civil action for breach of contract it is clear from the allegations made in the fir and evidence on record that the accused have committed only a breach of agreement in order to constitute an offence of cheating the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was made a mere failure to keep a promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating the defence lawyer submittedthe magistrate however said that unless valid permission for construction is obtained from the municipal authorities no part of that construction can be sold despite having the knowledge of absence of valid permission to construct the accused agreed to sell the flat to ravindra by accepting rs 45 lakh in 1998 being the developer it was the duty of the accused to start bookings and construction work only after valid permission from civic authorities still for reasons best known to them they proceeded with the booking and construction work as per available evidence on record informant ravindra was unaware of the fact of absence of valid permission to construct b wing said the magistrate