1. Plaintiffs have filed Notice of Motion No. 16 of 2014 inter alia praying for appointment of court receiver of 17 flats described in prayer (a) of Notice of Motion with a direction to take forcible possession from defendant no. 2 to 21 and to hand over the same to the plaintiff for demolition and for carrying out redevelopment of the said property and to shift to the transit accommodation of their choice by accepting transit corporation, corpus fund and transportation charges as have been paid by the plaintiffs to the other members of the defendant no. 1 society. The plaintiffs also seek an injunction order against those defendants from entering upon the suit property as well as the 17 flats described in prayer (a). In so far as Notice of Motion (L) No.1885 of 2014 is concerned, the said notice of motion is filed by the defendant no. 13 inter alia praying for rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11(a) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the plaint is filed without any cause of action. I have heard the Notice of Motion (L) No. 1885 of 2014 first followed by Notice of Motion No. 166 of 2014. Both the motions are disposed of by a common order. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these two Notice of Motions are summarized as under:

2. The defendant no. 1 society is the owner of the property bearing CTS No. 64 admeasuring about 5075 sq. mtrs approximately consisting of two buildings of ground plus four upper floors.

The building no. 1 consists of 55 flats and the building no.2 consists of 19 flats totaling to 74 flats. There are also other two structures on the said property one is known as Krushna Kunj consisting of 21 tenements and second “Vasant Niwas” consisting of 4 tenements in occupation of total of 25 tenements on the said property.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is in a dilapidated condition and was in need of major repairs. The defendant no. 1 society appointed their project management consultant (PMC) for preparing and finalizing the feasibility report and for floating tenders for the redevelopment of the suit property. The society issued an advertisement in the local newspapers inviting offers for redevelopment of the property. The defendant no. 1 society accepted the offer of the plaintiffs on 29th August, 2005 and appointed them as the developers of the suit property. The defendant no. 1 however, by letter dated 16th August, 2006 terminated and cancelled the appointment of the plaintiffs as developers of the suit property. The plaintiffs filed arbitration proceedings. In the special general body meeting, members of the society passed a resolution on 6th April, 2008 and unanimously decided to resolve all the pending issues between the parties and confirmed the grant of development rights to the plaintiffs.

4. On 8th April, 2008 the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 by virtue of the said resolution dated 6th April, 2008 entered into a development agreement which was registered and duly stamped on the terms and conditions recorded therein. The plaintiffs and defendant no.1 filed consent terms in the arbitration proceedings. It is the case of the plaintiffs that pursuant to the development agreement, the defendant no. 2 to 17 and/or their predecessors or joint holders executed irrevocable consent affidavit thereby agreeing the appointment of the plaintiffs as developers. Defendant no. 3 and 4 are joint holders of flat no. 102. consent has been issued by defendant no. 3 in respect of flat no. 201. The joint holders are defendant no. 10 and 11. The consent letter has been executed by defendant no. 10. In respect of flat no. 303. Defendant no. 12 along with her deceased husband who were the joint holders, both of them have executed the irrevocable consent.

5. On 31st August, 2009 the society passed a resolution and agreed to modify the agreement dated 8th April, 2008 and accordingly entered into a supplemental development agreement dated 30h Nove