The Court can grant interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act against non-signatories if necessary to ensure redevelopment, and occupancy rights are secondary to contractual obligations of the Society.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1) These Appeals are filed challenging the judgment and order dated 1 April 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 38696/2024 filed by the Appellant-Ambit Urbanspace under the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) seeking interim measures for vacation of premises by Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 for the purpose of carrying out development process of the building in question.

2) The developer-Ambit Urbanspace has filed Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L.) No.12585/2025 challenging the judgment and order dated 1 April 2025. Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No.16482/2025 is filed by original Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to the limited extent of some of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge qua about tenancy rights of Respondent Nos. 5 to 8, even though there is no specific direction against them in the operative part of the impugned judgment and order.

3) A very brief factual narration of the case as a prologue to the judgment would be necessary. For ease of reference, throughout the judgment, parties are referred to by their description in the Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L.) No.12585/2025 filed by the developer. By a Deed of Conveyance dated 12 May 1972 between Smt. Sushilabai Makhanlal Poddar (Vendor) and Poddar Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited (Purchaser), plot of land admeasuring 2014.50 sq.mtrs at CTS No.73 and 73/1 to 10 of Village-Malad, Taluka-Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District, S.V. Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai – 400 067 together with building standing thereon known as ‘Poddar Apartment’ comprising of ground plus four upper floors consisting of 30 flats and 44 shops on the ground floor and 2 basements and 5 enclosed garages, was purchased by the Respondent No.1-Society. Under the said conveyance, the Vendor-Smt. Sushilabai Poddar, retained the ground floor comprising of 44 shops, basement and 5 enclosed garages as absolute owner thereof and was accordingly admitted as member of the first Respondent-Society. Upon death of Smt. Sushilabai Poddar, Respondent Nos.2 to 4 claim ownership in respect of 44 shops, 2 basements and 5 enclosed garages. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 inducted tenants in respect of the said 44 shops and 2 basements. They also inducted five persons, including Respondent Nos. 5 to 8, in the 5 enclosed garages. Apart from the said 46 tenants and 5 inductees of Respondent Nos.2 to 4, there are 31 members of the first Respondent-Society.

4) The Society has resolved to undertake the process of redevelopment of the building and appointed the Appellant as the developer to carry out the development process. On 21 May 2024, Development Agreement came to be executed between the Appellant and Respondent No.1-Society with Respondent Nos.2 to 4 as confirming parties. The first Respondent-Society has also executed a Power of Attorney dated 21 May 2024 in favour of the Appellant. The Appellant submitted plans for construction of the proposed building to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, which issued Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 9 October 2024 and Intimation of Approval (IOA) dated 15 October 2024 approving the building plans. By Supplementary Development Agreement dated 21 October 2024, certain te