The judgment established the principle that dissenting members of a cooperative society are bound by the majority's decision for redevelopment and are estopped from challenging it. The court also emphasized the need to protect the interests of the majority and the developer in cases of redevelopment.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8 May 2015 of a learned Single Judge of this Court appointing the Court Receiver of this Court as Receiver of the two flats presently in occupation of the appellants and directing the appellants to hand over possession of the said flats to the developer, subject to the developer paying the amounts payable to the appellants under the Development Agreement through the Court Receiver.

2. The high degree of saline corrosion in Mumbai shortens the life of buildings. Thousands of buildings require either entire reconstruction or extensive repairs which the occupants belonging to low income group or middle class families cannot afford. The only way out is redevelopment with higher FSI provided under the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991. This requires involvement of a developer to be selected by the cooperative housing society who will develop the building and provide new rehabilitation flats of equal or larger area to occupants in the old building free of cost and recover his costs and profit from construction of additional flats which the developer can sell on his own. The solution appears to be both simple and a win-win situation for the occupants as well as the developer.

3. But the facts of this case, as several other cases in this Court, explain why many of the old or dilapidated buildings in the city of Mumbai continue to be in the same condition. A cooperative housing society and an overwhelming majority of members of the cooperative housing society agreeing for redevelopment and vacating their flats for that purpose, are held to ransom because a small minority of members do not allow the redevelopment process to commence. Under a typical redevelopment agreement, all the members of the cooperative housing society are to get, on ownership basis, flats in the new building, which many a time are larger than their respective flats in the old building and are also to get rent for the period during which the new building is to be constructed. However, either to extract additional benefits/amounts or for extraneous consideration, at the instance of a rival developer, the members in minority litigate and continue to litigate for several years, if not decades, stalling the redevelopment project and causing unbearable and irreparable hardship to the majority members and the developer.

4. In one case after another, this Court has been passing orders directing such recalcitrant members to act according to the resolutions of the cooperative housing society passed either unanimously or with majority of 70% of the members. Such recalcitrant members, however, know that even after holding a large number of members of the cooperative society and the developer to ransom for years, if not decades, they have nothing to lose because they will still be getting flats in the new building with the same area, amenities and facilities which the other members are going to get under the Development Agreement. Hence, whatever additional benefits/amounts, if any, they may succeed in extracting from the developer would only be a bonus and there will be nothing to lose, if they ultimately lose in the litigation.

5. In the present case also, the cooperative society of 20 members unanimously passed resolutions in 2009 and 2010 resolving to go for redevelopment as the building had developed cracks in the slabs, beams and columns and the structure was deteriorating. A Development Agreement was entered into between the cooperative housing society and the developer on 21 September 2010 which provides that each member will get a selfcontained flat admeasuring usable 575 sq. ft. carpet area in the new building (as against the flat admeasuring 387 sq. ft. in the old building), rent for the period of construction of the new building at Rs.28,000/per month and Corpus Fund of Rs.7 lakhs as compensation for loss of his fixtures, fittings, etc. in the old building due to demolition a