The bench of justice G S Kulkarni referred to a previous order while making the judgement.(Representational photo)
The bench of justice G S Kulkarni referred to a previous order while making the judgement.(Representational photo)

Choice of majority should prevail in cases of redevelopment, says Bombay high court

HC was hearing a petition regarding redevelopment of a society in Santacruz (East). It asked the receiver to take possession of three flats held by two parties.
Hindustan Times | By K A Y Dodhiya, Mumbai
UPDATED ON MAY 18, 2019 11:26 PM IST

When it comes to redevelopment, the choice of the majority will override that of the minority, the Bombay high court (HC) recently said, reiterating a previous order.

On May 3, HC was hearing a petition, regarding redevelopment of a society in Santacruz (East), filed by a developer who had been appointed by the society in 2012. While members of the society had, through a special general body meeting, decided to appoint the developer, three parties holding two flats in the building had refused to vacate the premises.

The bench of justice G S Kulkarni asked the receiver to take possession of the two flats and hand it over to the developer. It further said that once the work is completed, the flats should be handed over to the receiver, who will in turn give them to the residents.

The developer sought directions from the court to forcefully evict the dissenting members to allow redevelopment, arguing that decision was taken in 2012 and the condition of the building was extremely dangerous.

One of the three dissenting residents, defending his opposition, cited a previous agreement with another developer which was undecided. He argued that if, and when, it was decided in favour of the other developer, there would be a situation where there would be two developers. The others said they opposed the move as the society had not added them as members.

Referring to a previous order, Kulkarni said, “The court, considering the position in law held that minuscule members cannot withhold benefits to the majority of the members, merely because terms and conditions of the development are not acceptable to these members, who are in minority.”

SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Close
SHARE
Story Saved
OPEN APP