As per case facts, the Petitioner, as a lessee, constructed a ground plus two-storey structure on land and leased units to tenants (members of Respondent No. 1 Society). The original ... owner's legal heir (Respondent No. 3) allegedly executed Deeds of Conveyance for the land to Respondent No. 1 Society and for individual units to tenants. Respondent No. 1 Society then sought and obtained a Certificate of Unilateral Deemed Conveyance from Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner appealed the Order, asserting subsisting leasehold rights and ownership of the structures, alleging fraud and misrepresentation by Respondent No. 1 in obtaining the certificate. The question arose whether Respondent No. 2 Competent Authority, based on the material on record, erred in granting the Certificate of Deemed Conveyance to Respondent No. 1 Society. Finally, the Court found that the Petitioner has valid and subsisting leasehold rights in the subject land and ownership of the structure. The documents relied upon by Respondent No. 1, including the Deed of Confirmation, were found to have serious discrepancies and were considered prima facie forged and fabricated. Respondent No. 1's conduct was deemed dishonest and fraudulent, and the documents did not comply with MOFA Section 4 requirements for an Agreement for Sale or proof of approved building plans. Consequently, the impugned Order granting Deemed Conveyance was quashed and set aside, and the Certificate of Deemed Conveyance was cancelled.