Bombay High Court Orders Occupants To Vacate, Says Delay By Few Members May Affect Entire Redevelopment Project
The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief pending arbitration by directing three occupants of a co-operative housing society to vacate their premises within two weeks.
The court held that, in the facts of the case, the disputes raised by them could not justify delaying a redevelopment project after 15 of the society's 17 members had already executed the redevelopment documents and the necessary municipal approvals had been obtained.
Justice Amit Borkar observed, “Delay by only a few members may not remain confined to their own premises. It may affect the rights and expectations of all remaining members and may also cause financial difficulties and uncertainty to the entire redevelopment project.”
The dispute arose from the redevelopment of Deepa Co-operative Housing Society, a 17-unit building constructed in 1980. Fifteen members had executed the Development Agreement, the Power of Attorney and the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements.
The Municipal Corporation had also granted the Intimation of Disapproval and approved the redevelopment plans. Three occupants, however, did not hand over possession, preventing the redevelopment from commencing.
The developer approached the High Court seeking interim relief pending arbitration. The housing society supported the plea, submitting that under the Development Agreement, the developer's obligation to begin paying transit rent would arise only after every member vacated and handed over possession.
Two occupants opposed the petition, submitting that they operated Priyanka Wines from the premises and could not vacate until the liquor licence was transferred under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The third occupant contended that there was an unresolved dispute regarding the area of the permanent alternate accommodation proposed to be allotted.
Rejecting the first objection, the court held, “Merely because transfer of licence requires certain formalities, that cannot become a sufficient reason for keeping the entire redevelopment project pending for an unlimited period.”
The court noted that there was no material before it to show that the occupants had taken prompt steps to secure transfer of the licence after the redevelopment process was approved. It also found there was nothing on record indicating when the process was likely to be completed.
On the dispute over the alternate accommodation, the court held that the issue could be examined in separate proceedings and, if necessary, appropriate directions or compensation could be granted in accordance with law. It held that the dispute, by itself, could not justify stopping the redevelopment of the entire society.
The court noted that 15 of the society's 17 members had already executed the redevelopment documents, the society supported the project and the necessary municipal permissions had been obtained.
It further observed, “If interim relief is refused, the petitioner will not be able to commence redevelopment despite obtaining necessary permissions and despite overwhelming support of the Society. The remaining members will also continue to suffer uncertainty regarding redevelopment of their property. Delay may further increase construction cost and create additional burden upon the project.”
Holding that the developer had established a strong prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favoured permitting the redevelopment to proceed, the court allowed the petition. It directed the three occupants to vacate and hand over vacant and peaceful possession within two weeks from July 1, 2026.
The court further ordered that if they failed to comply within that period, the Court Receiver would take possession with the assistance of the jurisdictional police so that the order could be effectively implemented
For N. Mehta Infra Realty LLP: Advocates H. Lakhani, Kalpesh Mehta, Vasim Shaikh and Prachi Badani.
For Deepa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.: Advocates Aman Angad and Arpita Tiwari.