Case Law Details
In a path-breaking judgment, the Bombay high court has held that even a single dissenting member of a cooperative housing society cannot be thrown out by a builder based on a mere development agreement with the society and a majority of the flat owners in it for redevelopment of the building.
Expressing serious concern at the “disturbing trend of developers approaching the court and seeking eviction and dispossession of non-cooperating members of housing societies’’, Justice S C Dharmadhikari held that any redevelopment activity “should not compromise the rights of members and must safeguard the existence of the society’’.
“It is the developer who comes to court on the basis of rights conferred in his favour by the society, including that of FSI/TDR. Thus, the society not only loses the existing structure completely but is divested of its right to the land itself. If all such arrangements are accepted at their face value, then the existence of the cooperative housing society itself is threatened,’’ the judge observed, adding that these were serious issues for the state to consider.
The judgment struck a blow for dissenting members and clearly indicated that a redevelopment agreement entered into by the housing society with a builder, despite having the consent of a majority of members, cannot bind the minority if the reconstruction is not in the interest of all members of the society.
By his judgment, a detailed copy of which was available on Wednesday, Justice Dharmadhikari last Saturday dismissed an interim application filed by a developer Acknur Constructions Pvt Limited filed against Fardoon Apartment Cooperative Housing Society at Khar. The developer, Deepak Rao, was seeking eviction of the owners of two shops and one residential flat in the building, as they were “stalling the redevelopment work agreed by the society last January in a general body meeting’’.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
I am the owner of a plot with half given to a society and the other half is a bungalow but the wall of the building is same no conveyance deed is done so the 7/12 is still in my name now we want to redevelop the building and the bungalow but on one side a garbage was made by the developer in the society compound which was shown in the blue print now he is adamant to get a shop in front of the redevelop building so is not willing to leave his garage or sign the redevelopment agreement what is the remedy
this is total injustice and defeating the purpose of a Coop. Hsg. Soc. The 3/4 members are indirectly blackmailing the other members. What judgement Mr. Dharmadhikari would have given if, the Developer offrs equal area to all the members? Why any member should ask for extra area than other members? Pl do not held the Developer responsible for any such conditions. Pl. answer.