Non-cooperative members of a co-operative society are bound by redevelopment decisions made by the majority, and courts can exercise powers under Section 9 to direct them to vacate premises for redevelopment.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

By the impugned order dated 17th September 2025, passed in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), the appellants/original respondent no.2 & 3 have been directed to hand over its flats to the respondent no.1 for the purposes of redevelopment. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred this Appeal under Section 37 of the Act.

2. The facts relevant to the present appeal are as under:

(a) The appellant no.1 was the original developer of respondent no.2–society. The appellant no.2 also owns certain units in the said building. The building was constructed in 1980s and had deteriorated to a dilapidated condition.

(b) In 2021, the respondent no.2 initiated the process of redevelopment. The appellant no.1 was one of the bidders and submitted its proposal on 4^th October 2021. The respondent no.2 did not accept the appellant’s proposal and instead appointed respondent no.1 as its developer. A Development Agreement dated 21^st May 2025 was executed between the respondents no.1 and 2 for the redevelopment of the building. This binds all the members of the society including respondent no.2. It contains an arbitration clause.

(c) Respondent no.1 has obtained several development permissions, including an Intimation of Disapproval (“IOD”) from respondent no.3 on 13^th January 2025.

(d) All members of the Society, except the appellant, have vacated their flats as required under the Development Agreement. Respondent no.1 commenced payment of transit rent to the members, but is unable to obtain vacant physical possession of all units due to the appellant’s refusal to vacate.

(e) After losing the redevelopment project, the appellant filed multiple proceedings challenging the process, including filing:

(i) Writ Petition (L) No. 14121 of 2025 challenging, inter alia, the IOD and other permissions issued by the respondent no.3;

(ii) Suit (L) No. 17520 of 2025 seeking, inter alia, a declaration that redevelopment is illegal, for cancellation of the Development Agreement dated 21^st May 2025 and for damages.

(iii) Complaints before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies;

(iv) Police complaint before Kasturba Marg Police Station; and

(v) Complaints to various officers of respondent no.3 regarding the development permissions granted to the respondent no.1.

3. In these circumstances, the respondent no.1 filed the Section 9 Petition seeking directions against the appellants to forthwith vacate the premises, remove its belongings, and hand over peaceful possession, to enable the redevelopment.

4. By the impugned order, the appellants were directed to vacate the units on or before 30^th September 2025, failing which the Court Receiver has been authorised to take physical possession of the premises and hand over the same to the respondent no.1 for redevelopment. Several ancillary directions have also been issued.

5. We have heard Mr. Kamat, learned senior advocate for the appellant, Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Raheja, learned advocate for the respondent no.2, who adopted the submissions of Mr. Shah.

6. Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants, has confined his arguments in this appeal to a single issue, namely, that the property cannot be redeveloped and this aspect has been misconstrued by the learned single Judge. He submitted that the property falls within the buffer zone of Sanjay Gandhi National Park (in short, SGNP). He relied upon the Notification dated 5^th December 2016 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, and submitted that construction activity cannot be