Mumbai: Man refusing to vacate flat for redevelopment to pay Rs 5 lakh to housing society
Maintaining that a single person cannot take the housing society to ransom, the HC directed the member to vacate the flat within two weeks, failing which, the court receiver would take forcible possession of the house to handover it to the developer or the society.
2 min read
The HC imposed a compensatory cost of Rs 5 lakh on the member to be paid to the society within 10 days. (File)The Bombay High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on a member of a housing society who was not vacating his flat, which is in a dilapidated building, even after the society appointed a developer to demolish the building and construct a new one in its place.
Maintaining that a single person cannot take the housing society to ransom, the HC directed the member to vacate the flat within two weeks, failing which, the court receiver would take forcible possession of the house to handover it to the developer or the society. It imposed a compensatory cost of Rs 5 lakh on the member to be paid to the society within 10 days.
Justice Girish S Kulkarni last month passed the order while hearing an arbitration plea filed by S M Magnate Construction, which had been appointed as a developer by majority members of New Saket Co-op Housing Society for the redevelopment project.
The developer informed the HC that the society had on November 27, 2016, passed an unanimous resolution for redevelopment and appointed the petitioner as the builder. On May 5, 2021, the BMC also issued a notice to the society asking that the building be vacated for demolition as it was “absolutely in a ruinous state”. An agreement between the society and the developer was signed on June 29, 2021.
This January too, the BMC issued a notice to the society asking members to vacate the building. Following this, 10 members gave written consent to vacate the premises on or before March 2. “The respondent member, however, did not cooperate, halting the redevelopment process,” senior advocate Birendra Saraf said on behalf of the developer.
The judge held, “A single person cannot take the society to ransom and cause prejudice to the majority will. Such situations are thus required to be dealt with strictly… This court would be failing in its duty if the respondent member is not saddled with exemplary cost…”
You May Like
Photos
