MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court last week directed two members of a housing society who were holding up its redevelopment to hand over possession of their vacant flats to the developer within a week, observing that society members cannot indefinitely stall redevelopment by failing to come forward to execute individual permanent alternative accommodation agreements (PAAAs) with the developer.
Their continued possession of their old flats, the court said, “has the effect of obstructing the redevelopment which the parties have agreed to undertake”.
The developer’s case was not that the two members had refused to accept the PAAA but that they were not coming forward to execute it. Because of the non-cooperation of two members, a single-judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar said, “The immediate question is whether interim protection is required so that the redevelopment agreed between the parties is not stopped.
The court took note of a clause in the DA that stated that the developer “shall be fully entitled to seek vacation of the premises held by the members” for redevelopment of the property. The clause, the court said, “Cannot be understood to mean that a member can keep the redevelopment stopped for an unlimited period by refusing to come forward for execution of the individual agreement and taking the position that the agreement has not been registered”.
The court’s ruling on September 17 came in the case of Charkop Dhanwantari Kabira Cooperative Housing Society (CDKCHS) in Kandivali, where two of the 36 members of the society had failed to execute their PAAAs with the developer. However, the 30-day period to vacate the premises lapsed on August 10. Dev Pooja Builders Private Limited (DPBPL) had moved the court against the two members and the housing society, contending that the alleged breach of the development agreement (DA) had delayed the redevelopment process as the old building could not be demolished unless all its members handed over vacant possession of their flats. The developer informed the court that, except for two members — Vilas Gaikwad and Suhas Bhalerao — all other members had vacated their flats. He stated that the building could not be demolished unless all members vacated their premises. He stated that registration of the individual PAAA was a condition that had to be met before compulsory vacation of the premises.
Bhalerao’s lawyer, however, told the court that the developer’s plea was premature. He said that there could not be a breach of the DA when the developer had not registered the PAAA.
