1. Special Leave Petitions filed by tenants against High Court orders concerning premises development — subsequent termination of development agreement and appointment of a new developer. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 128
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
S.M. Pasha & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
SLP(C) NO. 4428 OF 2016 With SLP(C) NO...... CC No. 4922 OF 2016
Decided On : 17-02-2023
Important Points
Upholding rights of tenants and developers in property disputes through opportunities for challenging development agreements.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Headnote
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - PROPERTY DISPUTE - Not Applicable - The court addressed the termination of a development agreement and the subsequent execution of a new agreement. It ordered the management to furnish the new agreement to tenants, allowing them to challenge it if aggrieved. It also permitted the original developer to challenge the termination and execution of the new agreement.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered petitions related to the termination of a development agreement and subsequent execution of a new one, involving tenants and developers.Finding of the Court:
The court allowed withdrawal of one petition due to subsequent developments, while directing the management to provide tenants with the new development agreement for potential challenges. It also permitted the original developer to contest the termination and execution of the new agreement.Issues:
Termination of development agreements, rights of tenants, and developers in property disputes.Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized providing opportunities for affected parties to challenge new agreements and upheld their rights in property matters.Final Decision:
One petition was dismissed as withdrawn, while directions were given regarding furnishing the new development agreement and permitting challenges by relevant parties.Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, AOR Ms. Dharitry Phookan, AOR Ms. Oindrila Sen, Adv. Ms. Lanutula Karanur, Adv. Mr. Ashok Anand, AOR Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla,, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Shaiendra P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Ms. Garima Bajaj, AOR Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Kunal Cheema, AOR Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Adv. Mr. Simran Jeet, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Adv. Ms. Aditi Deshpande Parkhi, Adv. Mr. Shivam Dube, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Adv. Mr. Nishant Bishnoi, AOR Ms. Srishti Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR Ms. Daisy Hannah, AOR Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Adv. Mr. Puneet Chahar, Adv. Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ayush Acharjee, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, AOR Ms. Dharitry Phookan, AOR Ms. Oindrila Sen, Adv. Ms. Lanutula Karanur, Adv. Mr. Ashok Anand, AOR Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla,, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Shaiendra P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Ms. Garima Bajaj, AOR Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Kunal Cheema, AOR Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Adv. Mr. Simran Jeet, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Adv. Ms. Aditi Deshpande Parkhi, Adv. Mr. Shivam Dube, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Adv. Mr. Nishant Bishnoi, AOR Ms. Srishti Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR Ms. Daisy Hannah, AOR Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Adv. Mr. Puneet Chahar, Adv. Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ayush Acharjee, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Court notes the termination of the previous development agreement and execution of a new one, necessitating that tenants be provided the terms for potential legal challenge. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Parties may be granted liberty to challenge new development agreements or terminations before appropriate forums when subsequent developments render previous proceedings infructuous. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. One petition dismissed as withdrawn; another disposed of with directions to furnish the new development agreement to tenants and liberty for parties to challenge termination. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
5. What happens when a development agreement is terminated and a new one is signed during the pendency of a petition?
The court may permit the withdrawal of the petition if the cause of action against the previous developer no longer survives, while granting liberty to the affected parties to challenge the new agreement before an appropriate court or forum. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Are tenants entitled to the terms of a new development agreement entered into by management?
Yes, the court directed that the copy of the fresh development agreement be furnished to the respective tenants to allow them to challenge its terms before an appropriate court or forum in accordance with law. (Para 5 )
7. Can a developer whose agreement was terminated during litigation challenge that termination in a separate forum?
Yes, the court reserved liberty for the terminated developer to challenge the termination of the development agreement and the execution of a new agreement before the appropriate court or forum. (Para 5 )
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
