Court relief for 3 members of Khar hsg society

Mumbai: In what comes as a relief to the handful of dissenting members of a co-operative housing society in Khar, the B o m b ay high court refused to grant any interim relief to a builder who wanted to have them evicted so that he could go ahead with redevelopment work on the building.     A division bench headed by Justice F I Rebello, however, admitted an appeal filed by Acknur Builders against a December 2009 judgement of a single judge that held that even a single dissenting member of a co-operative 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. 
    The appeal bench wondered in open court on Friday whether a builder had the locus standi to seek eviction of the members who were in minority and opposed to the redevelopment project. If anyone, it was the society, the judges remarked while denying the appointment of a court receiver over the prime property in Khar (W). But the builder’s lawyer pointed out that a division bench headed by the Chief Justice of the Bombay HC had held that a builder did have the right to seek removal of the dissenting minority flat owners. 
    The judgment, which is under challenge by the builder, had held that any redevelopment activity should not compromise the rights of members and must safeguard the existence of the society. The 2009 judgment passed by Justice S C Dharmadhikari had also stated that the developer had “no higher right than the housing society”. While observing that any relief granted now would mean disposal of the plea, the HC expedited the matter and granted liberty to the developer to apply for an early date for the final hearing. 
    The case involves developer Acknur Constructions Pvt Limited and Fardoon Apartment Co-operative Housing Society. The developer, Deepak Rao, was seeking eviction of the owners of two shops and one flat as they were stalling the redevelopment work agreed to by the society last January in a general body meeting. 
    Of the 12 members in the 39-year-old four-storey building, three opposed the redevelopment on the grounds that it was neither in their interest nor that of the society.