The Bombay high court has imposed a fine of ₹5 lakh on the member of a cooperative housing society for failing to vacate his flat and thus trying to held up the redevelopment of the residential building. It also directed the member to vacate the flat failing which it would be taken over by the court receiver.
The HC said the flat owner did not have any valid reasons to oppose the society’s decision to redevelop its property and the litigation in a commercial court seeking a stay on the redevelopment work was a delaying tactic.
A single-judge bench of justice Girish Kulkarni, while hearing the arbitration petition of a developer, was informed by senior advocate Birendra Saraf that his client had been appointed by the society for the purpose of redevelopment in June 2021 and accordingly initiated various procedures. The building was constructed in 1962 and is now in a dilapidated condition, he said.
Saraf told the bench that his client had received a no-objection certificate as well from the deputy registrar of cooperative societies based on which 10 members of the building had already vacated their flats. However, one member refused to vacate and had also initiated proceedings in a civil court to stay the redevelopment work.
The bench was informed that due to the refusal of the member to vacate the flat, the cost of the project was escalating and hence, he should be directed to vacate the premises and hand over possession of the flat to the developer so that the redevelopment work could be initiated. Saraf also said that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation had issued a notice to the society stating that the building should be immediately demolished as it fell in C-1 category.
However, advocate Ashok Saroagi for the flat owner argued that the decision of the society was not valid as the meeting in which the decision was taken was not called properly. He further said he was opposing the appointment of the developer as his financial stability was not proven and the amount for security deposit between the society and the developer was much lesser than the cost of even one flat.
After hearing both sides and perusing their respective replies, the bench said, “Respondent no. 2 [member] has advanced a frivolous case on issues which are not even pleaded in the reply affidavit. Secondly, valuable public time of the court has been consumed in advancing submissions on a case not averred in the pleadings, as if the court has no other business except to hear respondent no. 2’s case. It also needs to be noted that there cannot be a reason for a bonafide litigant to obstruct the redevelopment on such grounds and in such a manner, except for extraneous purposes. The court’s process cannot be abused by such litigants.”
The HC directed the member to vacate his flat within two weeks and in the event of he not doing so, asked the court receiver to take custody of the house and hand it over to the developer.