The majority decision of the society members prevailed, and the objections raised by the plaintiffs were found to be unfounded and technical. The court emphasized the importance of carrying out the redevelopment of the building and concluded that the appeal lacked merit.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this Appeal, Appellants challenge order dated 30 June 2023 passed by the City Civil Court rejecting Notice of Motion No.1278 of 2022 filed by the Appellants seeking temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants from acting on various clauses of the Development Agreement, restraining Defendant No.1 from handing over suit property to Defendant No.1 before completion of process of sub-division and to restrain Defendant No.2 from getting plans approved without rectification of the Development Agreement.

2. There are total 88 Flats/Commercial Units in the building which has been demolished in January 2022 after issuance of Notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporations Act, 1888 issued by the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai. Members of the Society have chosen Defendant No.2 as a Developer for carrying out redevelopment of the building in pursuance of the resolutions adopted by the General body of the Defendant No.1-Society. It is undisputed position that out of 88 members, 80 members have signed Development Agreement with Defendant No.2. Only 8 members, (Plaintiffs/Appellants) are averse to execution of Development Agreement on account of various objections raised in the Suit. It is in this background that 8 members of the Society have instituted S.C. Suit No.830 of 2022 before the City Civil Court seeking execution of Supplementary Agreement for provision of 35% extra area for shops of Plaintiff Nos.2, 6 & 7 and to provide terrace admeasuring existing terrace area + 25% extra area to Plaintiff No.4 in addition to corpus, rent and other benefits. Plaintiffs have also sought an injunction against Defendant No.1 from handing over the suit property to Defendant No.2 before completion of process of sub-division and other compliances like IOD. In their Suit, Plaintiffs filed Notice of Motion No.1278 of 2022 seeking temporary injunction against the Defendants. By order dated 30 June 2023, the City Civil Court has proceeded to reject the Motion, which has led to filing of the present Appeal.

3. I have heard Mr. Khandeparkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. He would submit that mere majority of members of the Society cannot validate invalid decisions of General Body of the Society or the Development Agreement which is an outcome of misrepresentation and against statutory provisions. Mr. Khandeparkar would broadly raise the following objections to the entire redevelopment process leading to passing of General Body Resolution and execution of Development Agreement by 80 out of 88 members :

(i) That majority of residential flat owner members is being misused for the purpose of granting additional area to them counted on the basis of illegal extensions done by them to their flats, at the cost of the entitlements of commercial shop owners,

(ii) That the Development Agreement does not envisage allotment of statutorily grantable 35% fungible area plus 15% incentive area,

(iii) That there is variance in the final Development Agreement signed by the members in comparison to the draft Development Agreement circulated for perusal of the members,

(iv) The Development Agreement does not contain one of the most basic documents in the form of Annexure-F, which is supposed to specify the exact area that would be allotted to each member in the reconstructed building,

(v) only 34 parking spaces are agreed to be provided for 88 Units constructed in rehab portion by misrepresenting the members that the project is being executed under Regulation 33(6) when in fact the FSI benefits are being reaped by the Developer under DCR 33(7)(B).

4. Mr. Khandeparkar has taken me through various documents as well as statutory provisions to elaborate his submissions in respect of the five broad concerns of the Plaintiffs with regard to the entire redevelopment process. He would submit that the residential flat owner members have constructed extensions to their flats, which is not the case with the commercial shop owners. Th