Point of Law: Society - Process of re-development of its building - Plaintiff has neither made out a prima-facie case nor could show as to how redevelopment, would cause loss to him nor could establish, re-development project if implemented would cause inconvenience to him.

JUDGMENT :

Heard. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, Appeal from Order is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

2. At the instance of a solitary member of Abhang Samata Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., the learned trial Court vide order dated 19th March, 2021 (Impugned Order), injuncted appellant/society from proceeding with the process of re-development of its building. Appellant-society, seeks to challenge the impugned order under Section 104 read with Order 43(1)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short).

3. The facts, which have led the appellant to file the present appeal in brief are as under: The appellant is a co-operative housing society formed and registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies, Act, 1960 (“MCS Act” for short) and is owner of the land and the building which is subject matter of this appeal, i.e., property bearing CTS No.33 of 2014, Survey No. Plot-15 admeasuring about 2748.70 sq.mtrs. situated at Sunder Nagar, S.V.Road, Malad (West), Mumbai 400 064 (‘Property’ for short). Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) is a member of the society, who came to be admitted to the membership in the year 2020. Respondent no.2 is developer/builder, who has been appointed as, ‘developer’ by the appellant/society for carrying out development of its property.

4. Respondent No.1 fled Short Cause Suit No.1240 of 2020 in the Court of City Civil Court, Dindoshi against the society and the developer inter-alia, seeking declaration that any arrangement made between the society and the developer for the purpose of developing the subject property is bad in law and is contrary to the provisions of law on the ground that re-development process initiated, violates guide-lines issued by the State vide its directives under Section 79-A of the MCS Act. As also on the ground that process of selection of developer itself, is vitiated by fraud. Thus, pleaded, directives issued under Section 79-A were not followed in its letter and spirit.

5. The learned trial Court vide the order dated 19th March, 2021 injuncted the society from proceeding with the re-development.

6. The facts discernible from the record are as under:

Existing building of the society consists of four units, viz. L1 to L4 having ground plus 3/4 upper floors, occupied by the existing members of the society. Out of said four existing buildings, L1 and L2 consists of 16 fats each and L3 and L4 consists of 14 fats each. Existing buildings being 45 year old, its, structural audit was done by M/s. Arvind Singh Consultant Pvt. Ltd., and recommended substantial repairs. However, cost of such repairs, renovation and improvements was found, not workable and, therefore, members explored the possibility of re-development of the said property through reputed developers. The society, therefore, in its Special General Body Meeting (SGM) held on 1st November, 2015 by requisite majority, decided to re-develop the property by demolishing the existing buildings. Admittedly, respondent no.1 (plaintiff) was not a member of the society in the year 2015. The Special General Meeting decided to appoint architect and Project Management Consultant (‘PMC’) to carry out re-development in accordance with directives issued under Section 79-A of the MCS Act. Thereafter, M/s. Strut Consultants Pvt. Ltd. were appointed in November, 2015. PMC, submitted its feasibility report on 14th December, 2018. Pursuant to which, the appellants/society opted for open tender process; in response thereto, three developers submitted their proposals, i.e., M/s. Mayfair Housing; Balaji Land Makers LLP and Arkade Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.2 herein). It appears from the pleadings, the proposals were placed before the members in Special General Body Meeting held on 29th September, 2019 and the existing members, who attended the meeting unanimously accepted the proposal of the respondent no.2. Whereafter respondent no.2 submitted final offer dated 30th April