Members can't reverse stand after agreeing to building revamp: HC | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Dec 18, 2017-Monday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Members can't reverse stand after agreeing to building revamp: HC

The revamp of a housing society cannot be stopped just because a few members who had initially agreed to it have now reversed their stand, the Bombay high court (HC) ruled, giving orders to take possession of the flats of two dissenting members of a society in Mumbai on Friday.

mumbai Updated: Jul 11, 2015 22:24 IST
HT Correspondent

The revamp of a housing society cannot be stopped just because a few members who had initially agreed to it have now reversed their stand, the Bombay high court (HC) ruled, giving orders to take possession of the flats of two dissenting members of a society in Mumbai on Friday.

With the building developing cracks in its slabs, beams and columns, the Young Men’s Co-operative Housing Society decided to go for redevelopment in 2009.

In September 2010, the society entered into an agreement with the Shree Krishna Sai Development Corporation, with the consent of all members.

The members were promised a 575-sqft flat against their current carpet area of 387 sqft.

Eighteen members vacated their flats in November 2013, but the remaining two -- Ravi Botalje and Avinash Babar -- reversed their stand and opposed the redevelopment. The members approached the Bombay high court, but their plea was rejected on May 8, and a single judge order appointed a court receiver on their flats. They then filed a further appeal.

The division bench of chief justice Mohit Shah and justice AK Menon rejected their appeal, primarily because 18 out of the 20 members had vacated their flats in November

2013, and the walls of the 18 flats had been substantially demolished.

The bench also noted that the developer had spent Rs2 crore on the redevelopment, and was spending Rs60 lakh a month towards the transit rent for the remaining 18 families.

In its 29-page order, the division bench observed that old buildings in Mumbai continue to be in a dilapidated condition, even after resolving to go for redevelopment because the dissenting members hold the majority to ransom.

The bench said the dissenting members, who are in minority, initiate litigation either at the behest of a rival

developer, or to extract additional benefits or for extraneous consideration, stalling the redevelopment project for years.