The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to address inter se disputes hindering a redevelopment process within a society.

ORDER

1. This is a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act") whereby the petitioner is before the Court praying for interim reliefs pending the arbitral proceedings.

2. The need for the petitioner to initiate the present proceeding has arisen under the Redevelopment Agreement dated 06 July, 2021 entered by the petitioner with the respondent no. 1-society (for short 'the society'). The said agreement concerns the premises of the society which are now subject matter of redevelopment to be undertaken by the petitioner. The existing building comprised of 12 flats belonging to 12members of the society. It is petitioner's case that in respect of the flat which is stated to be occupied by respondent no.3, situated on the ground floor, and on the front side of the building being flat no.1, there is a dispute between respondent no.2 and respondent no.3. Respondent no.2 has filed a suit in this Court (Suit No.337 of 2016) in which respondent no.2 has contended that respondent no.3 is a trespasser, Respondent No.2 is seeking a relief in the suit that respondent no.3 be removed from the said flat and the possession of the flat being handed over to respondent no.2. Such suit is pending, also so far, there are no interim orders passed in the suit. The suit is stated to be at the stage of recording evidence.

3. Be that as it may, the concern of the petitioner in the present proceedings is that in view of the inter se disputes between respondent no.2 and respondent no.3, flat no.1 is not being vacated by respondent no.3 though all other 11 members have vacated their respective flats/tenements. The petitioner contends that the building is required to be demolished which is already in a dilapidated condition.

4. It is in these circumstances, the prayers are made in the present proceedings that directions be issued to the respondents not to cause any obstruction in the redevelopment process, and that vacant possession of the said ground floor flat, which is in possession of respondent no.3, be handed over to the petitioner/society, so that the redevelopment process can proceed further. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.3 by not not vacating the said flat is causing serious prejudice in the redevelopment work.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, as also I have perused the record. At the outset it needs to be noted that, it is quite settled that the minority members of the society cannot take a position contrary to the will of the majority members of the society. In the present case, the society has taken a decision to redevelop its building which is already in a dilapidated condition which is now required to be demolished. As per the agreement in question, respondent no.3 has agreed to appoint the petitioner as a developer. It appears to be not in dispute that there are 12 members out of which, 11 members have vacated their respective premises, except for respondent No.3 who is not vacating his flat, as a result of an inter se dispute between him and respondent no.3. Thus, both these respondents are causing obstruction to the redevelopment.

6. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner has certainly made out a prima facie case for grant of interim measures pending the arbitral proceedings. However, after some deliberation on the proceedings, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 have taken a fairs and. They state and agree that the disputes inter se between respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 are already subjudice in Suit No.337 of 2016 filed before this Court and that the rights of these parties would be determined in the proceedings of such suit. They would also state and agree that being parties to the suit they have a right to file appropriate interim proceedings/application as the situation may arise and seek such appropriate interim orders. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 also would not dispute that the redeve