D.G. Karnik, J.

1. These appeals are against two judgments and orders dated 5th April 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court declining to grant ad-interim relief in the notices of motion taken out by the appellant in Suit (L) No. 814 and 813 of 2011.

2. The property in question is one single property which consists of a sensused slum on the land owned by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. 753 families (678 residential, 142 commercial, 25 R/C and 8 others) are in occupation of the slums in these two appeals. Out of these occupants, about 500 occupants are held to be eligible for allotment of the premises in the slum rehabilitation scheme by the Competent Authority.

3. The occupiers of huts in the slum are divided into two groups. One group has formed an association which is respondent no.1 in the first appeal and the other group has formed an association which is respondent no.1 in the other appeal. They have also proposed to form two different cooperative societies which are respondent no.2 in the respective appeals. All other facts in both the appeals are identical. Since common questions of law and fact arise, we are disposing of these appeals by this common judgment.

4. According to the appellant, on 10th August 2003 the respondent no.1 Association and the respondent no.2 society (proposed) representing their members entered into an agreement with it for redevelopment of the property in question. More than 70% of the slum occupiers are the members of the respondent nos.1 and 2 and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to implement the slum rehabilitation scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short “the Slum Rehabilitation Act”). According to the appellant, from execution of the agreement dated 10th August 2003 the appellant has been pursuing the matter with the authorities and the list of persons eligible for allotment in the form of Annexure-2 was approved by the Municipal Corporation on 18th September 2009 (Exhibit-S / page 174), on account of continuous efforts of the appellant. However, soon after the list was approved and all procedural formalities were completed by the appellant at a greater expanse of time and money and the scheme was about to take of, the respondent no.23 – another builder stepped in. Thereafter by two separate notices dated 6th July 2009, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 purported to terminate the agreement dated 10th August 2003 and thereafter sought to appoint the respondent no.23 (a competing builder) for implementing the slum rehabilitation scheme. The appellant, therefore, filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 10th August 2003 and in the suit it took out a notice of motion for (i) appointment of a Receiver of the property with a further direction to permit the appellant to carry out the redevelopment, and (ii) an injunction restraining the respondents(respondent nos.1 and 2, their members and the new developer) from acting upon the development agreement dated 30th September 2009 entered into with respondent no.23 and from creating any other assignment in favour of any third party.

5. Mr. Samdani, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the purported termination of the agreement dated 10th August 2003 by two notices dated 6th July 2009 issued by respondent nos.1 and 2 is illegal and therefore the appellant is entitled to an injunction. He submitted that the appellant had toiled from the year 2003 to 2009 for getting all approvals for implementation of the scheme and just when all approvals were to be obtained, the respondent nos.1 and 2 sought to terminate the agreement illegally and have entered into an agreement with the respondent no.23 illegally. He submitted that on the date of the agreement, i.e. 10th August 2003, more than 70% of the eligible slum dwellers had agreed for the redevelopment work to be carried out