Upholding rights of tenants and developers in property disputes through opportunities for challenging development agreements.

ORDER :

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6142/2014 and Writ Petition No. 5490/2014, the present Special Leave Petitions (SLP) have been preferred by some of the tenants in occupation of the premises in question.

2. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4428/2016 except petitioner No. 4. Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners in Special Leave Petition (C) No…CC No. 4922/2016. Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the present office bearers. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 5 in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016 – main contesting respondent. Shri Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 17, Shri Gurukrishna Kumar, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 16 and Shri Sanjay Jain, learned ASG has appeared on behalf of the State of Maharashtra/MHADA.

3. Two IAs are filed for perjury on behalf of respondent No. 5. One IA is filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 challenging the termination of the development agreement which was in its favour.

3.1 Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016 has prayed to permit the petitioners (except petitioner No. 4) to withdraw the SLP in view of the subsequent development. It is submitted that the subsequent developments are mentioned in IA No. 128881/2019. It is pointed out that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the development agreement in favour of respondent No. 5 has been terminated on 08.10.2018. It is pointed out that the new development agreement in favour of another developer has also been entered into as the new developer has been appointed. It is further pointed out that even subsequently Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) has also terminated the development agreement which was in favour of respondent No. 5. It is submitted that in view of the change circumstances, as such, the cause does not survive which as such was against respondent No. 5 and therefore, it is prayed to permit the petitioners to withdraw Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4428/2016.

3.2 Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in SLP (C) No…CC No. 4922/2016 is not disputing the above. However, he has submitted that so far as the tenants and/or the petitioners in this SLP are concerned, they are not aware of the contents and/or terms and conditions of the new development agreement. It is submitted that therefore, the present management may be directed to furnish the copy of the fresh development agreement which has been entered into in favour of new developer so that they can know on what terms and conditions the fresh development agreement has been entered into and whether the tenants are agreeable on the same or not. He has prayed to reserve the liberty in favour of the petitioners to challenge the fresh development agreement before appropriate court/forum, if the petitioners are not agreeable on the terms and conditions on which the fresh development agreement has been entered into.

3.3 Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5, though has opposed the withdrawal of the present SLPs, but has submitted that even respondent No. 5 has challenged the termination of the development agreement in its favour by way of IA and has also initiated the perjury proceedings. It is prayed that if this Court is not inclined to permit respondent No. 5 to challenge the termination of respondent No. 5 in the present proceedings and is not entertaining the perjury application(s), the liberty may be reserved in favour of respondent No. 5 to challenge the termination and subsequen