Mumbai: Expressing displeasure over non-consenting minority members of a housing society refusing to vacate the premises, the Bombay High Court has said that such a conduct puts the entire redevelopment plan to risk, which prejudices the remaining members. The court also noted that it has a huge financial impact on developers as they have to start payment to cooperating members who have vacated their premises.
Justice Arif Doctor, has said that if the 11 non-consenting members fail to vacate the premises within two weeks, then they will have to pay Rs 5 lakh each, which will be distributed between the developer and the housing society.
Highlighting that the courts are flooded with such frivolous petition, the court remarked: “The docket of this Court continues to be flooded with several such matters where minority members continue to attempt to stymie redevelopment on grounds which are ex facie frivolous, untenable and contrary to the well settled position in law.”
The HC was hearing a petition by M/s. Dem Homes LLP, which was appointed to redevelop Taruvel co-operative housing society in Andheri. The building was declared as dilapidated by the VJTI in October last year. Although the society signed a Development Agreement with the developer in September 2023, few members refused to vacate the premises.
.jpeg)
.png)
The society agreed to get the building redeveloped through M/s. Dem Homes in its general body meeting in August 2021. However, 11 members opposed the development. Advocates NR Bubna and Pooja Malik, appearing for some of these members, submitted that the developer had refused to sign a PAAA with them. Also, they pointed out an order of a civil court which retrained the developer from creating third party rights in respect of flat number 8 in the B wing.
Advocates for the developer, Sarosh Bharucha and Jay Vakil, however, submitted that they had entered into a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) with every member who vacated the premises and handed them possession.
The HC noted that the civil court injunction did not restrain the redevelopment by the developer as it only pertained to not creating third-party rights in Flat No. 08 of the B Wing.
It said that failure of the non-consenting members from vacating the premises would only delay the redevelopment. “Such conduct of nonconsenting minority members has its own deleterious consequences as it not only prejudices the entire body of members of a society who seek to benefit from the redevelopment but infact also puts to risk the entire redevelopment,” Justice Doctor said.
The judges also highlighted that “frivolous and misconceived opposition by a few members” has a “huge financial impact” on developers, sometimes where the entire redevelopment becomes unworkable. “This conduct therefore frustrates the entire redevelopment which is meant for the benefit of the Society as a whole at the hands of a few,” the judge underlined.
“Considering the frivolity of the defense and complete disregard for the well settled position in law to the issue at hand and balancing it with the age of the members of the Respondent No. 1 Society, I deem it fit to grant costs,” Justice Doctor said.
 (1).jpg)
