The dissenting members of a cooperative society are bound by the decision of the majority and cannot obstruct redevelopment. The Court has the authority to appoint a Receiver and grant relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against obstructing members.

1. The above Petition is filed by the Petitioner--R.R.B. Realtors Pvt. Ltd., under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") against the Respondents--M/s. Subhash Nagar Rajeshwari CHS Ltd. and 10 others i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 to 11, who are the members of the Respondent No.1 Society but are not vacating and handing over possession of the tenements to the Petitioner and/or the Respondent No. 1 Society for the purpose of redevelopment. The Petitioner has therefore prayed for appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the tenements occupied by Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 mentioned in Schedule-A to the Petition with the power to take physical possession of the same and hand over the same to the Petitioner for the purpose of redevelopment of the Society building i.e. Building No. 18, Subhash Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 and also for appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the tenements occupied by Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 (whose whereabouts are not known) with power to take physical possession after making inventory of the articles lying in their tenements and handing over the same to the Petitioner for the purpose of redevelopment and upon completion of redevelopment of the new building to hand over possession of three tenements to be allotted in the name of Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 either to the Court Receiver or MHADA or to the Respondent No. 1 Society as may be deemed fit and proper by this Court. The Petitioner has also sought directions of this Court against Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 to forthwith vacate and hand over the physical possession of the respective tenements to the Petitioner for expeditious development of the Society building by accepting agreed rent, shifting charges, brokerage and corpus amount, within a time bound period.

2. The Petitioner is a Private Limited Company primarily engaged in the business of real estate development. Respondent No.1 is a registered Co-operative Housing Society of persons belonging to “Lower Income Group” (LIG). The said society comprises of 36 residential flats each admeasuring about 180 sq. ft. of carpet area. The building which is owned by the Society was constructed by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) i.e. building No. 18 on plot at S. No. 67 to 71 and CTS 831 (PT.) admeasuring about 1203.42 sq/mtrs. at Subhash Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 (the said building). The flat purchasers later formed the Respondent No. 1 Society and got the same registered under the Societies Registration Act. By a Deed of Conveyance dated 19th January, 1994, MHADA sold, transferred and conveyed the said building to the Respondent No. 1 Society. MHADA also granted lease of the land underneath the building in favour of the Society.

3. As stated hereinabove, Respondents Nos. 2 to 8 are the non-cooperating members of Respondent No-1-society who are refusing to vacate and hand over possession of the respective tenements for redevelopment contrary to their individual agreements as well as the Development Agreement dated 15th July, 2013 executed by the society. Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 are persons in whose name 3 flats stand in the records of the Society. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said flats have remained locked for nearly a decade and the owners of the said flats are not traceable. Pursuant to an order dated 21st March, 2016, a notice was issued by way of publication in the newspapers. However, Respondent Nos.9 to 11 have not appeared before the Court.

4. Out of the said 36 members, 26 members in consonance with the terms of the Redevelopment Agreement dated 15th July, 2013 vacated their individual flats in the said building and have already shifted to alternate transit accommodation of their own choice. Since Respondent Nos.2 to 8 have failed to vacate the premises and Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 have abandoned the premises and are not traceable, according to the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, the entire redevelopment of the Society has been