Important Point – Interim protection and/or relief in aid to the same, cannot be granted when main relief of specific performance is not possible.

Anoop V. Mohta, J.

The Appellants (original Petitioners) have challenged impugned order dated 14.01.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, thereby the Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “Act of 1996”) is dismissed.

2. The Appellants, through Section 9 Petition, sought injunction against Respondent No.1, his servants and agents from dispossessing from the property bearing land admeasuring 2,056 sq.mtrs. plot no.16 of Pali Hill Estate in the Village of Danda (Bandra), Taluka-Andheri, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051, forming part of Survey No.236, No.3, N.A. No.329 corresponding CTS. No. C/1395, C/1396 and C/1397 (hereinafter referred to as the said Property).

3. Respondent No.1 is 92 years old, a senior citizen, had entered into Development Agreement dated 23.06.2006. The learned Judge referred those facts in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 in the impugned order, which read thus:

“4 The development agreement dated 23.6.2006 was executed between Yusuf Khan alias Dilip Kumar Respondent no.1, M/s.Sharyans Resources Limited (hereinafter referred to as M/s.Sharyans) and respondent no.2 M/s.Gold Beam Construction Pvt. Ltd. whereby respondent no.1 granted development rights to the said M/s.Sharyans and to the respondent no.2 as stated therein in respect of the said property upon terms and conditions and for consideration of Rs.10 crores. The development agreement was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurance. Power of Attorney executed by respondent no.1 in favour of respondent no.2 and its director to enable the developer to commence the development work. As per the said Development Agreement developers paid sum of Rs.1 crores to the respondent no.1 on execution of development agreement and thereafter paid sum of Rs.3 crores. In all they paid Rs.4 crores to the respondent no.1. Some of the relevant clauses of the said development agreement dated 23.6.2006 are as under:

“1. (A) For monetary consideration as hereinafter provided to be paid by the Developers to the Owner and other than the consideration of providing to the Owner free of costs the built-up premises desired to be retained by the Owner, in the buildings to be constructed on the said property the Owner hereby grants to the Developers and the Developers hereby acquired from the Owner the development rights to the extent and in the manner hereinafter provided in respect of the said property more particularly described in the Schedule hereunder written (hereinafter as aforesaid referred to as “the said Property”) by consuming and utilizing the entire permissible F.S.I. in respect of the said Property (including F.S.I. of staircase, lifts, passage, balcony etc.) as well as by consuming and utilizing entire permissible T.D.R. In accordance with the Development Control Regulations of MCGM.

(B) It is estimated that for development of the said Property the total permissible FSI available is about 2056 sq.mtrs. Equivalent to 22130 sq.ft. and further FSI by way of TDR as permissible under D.C.Regulations of MCGM.

(i) The entitlement of the parties in the development potential shall be as under:

Party	Residential User	CPS
(1)	(22)	(3)
Owner	50%	50%
Developers	50%	50%

(ii) The Owner has retained and/or will be deemed to have retained for his own use and benefit above stipulated entitlement of the Owner out of the total FSI and TDR available for the development of the said property including proportionate entitlement of the total number of car parking slots (CPS) (both stilted and/or open) that may be provided in the complex and the said portion of the FSI (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Owner's Lot), shall be developed by the Developers at the cost of the Developers in the manner and in accordance with the plans prepared as per the requirement of the Owner and under the supervision of