1. Substantial compliance with statutory provisions for redevelopment of a building is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the law. 2. A writ court has the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a non-consenting member to hand over possession of their flat for redevelopment, where the society has exhausted all other remedies available to it.

JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 21.6.2022 in Special Civil Application No. 8530 of 2019.

2. Background of facts which has given rise to present Letters Patent Appeal are quoted hereunder:

(1) Original petitioner is a registered Co-operative Housing Society, consisting of several residential units, total 11 residential complexes, in which 78 flats were constructed over the land at Jodhpur, Satellite, Ahmedabad way back in the year 1971. Said flats were constructed prior to almost more than 50 years, and were constructed by a Co-operative Housing Society, namely Swami Vivekanand Nagar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. pursuant to Building Permission granted in 1969. On account of passage of time and quality of construction, the condition of building deteriorated and said residential flats became dilapidated since several years and slabs practically in each block were deteriorated and have got damaged and internal steel frames in RCC slabs has also become damaged and are in such dangerous situation that even repair work is not possible to maintain its strength and realizing such structural damage of residential flats, general body of members of the society resolved to go for redevelopment and for that purpose, an advertisement came to be issued on 8.9.2018. Pursuant to such advertisement, a developer namely Excel Life Space LLP and other developers approached the petitioner society. Negotiations took place and ultimately, petitioner society decided to go for such redevelopment work with Excel Life Space LLP - a developer of their society. Respondent - original petitioner informed Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’) about such structural damage which requires immediate attention and as such, a request was made to extend permission. In response to that, authorized representative of original respondent No. 1 made a spot visit on 12.12.2018 and realizing the position of construction prevailing of flats, a notice under Section 264 was issued on 15.12.2018 (one notice in common to whole society and one specifically to block No. D). By issuing such notice, respondent Corporation called upon the petitioner society to repair the damage under the supervision of Structural Engineer and submit necessary structural stability certificate as well.

(2) It is the case of the opponent society, who is original petitioner, that on request for structural stability report from one Shreeji Structurals and Structural Engineer they have clearly opined to demolish the building and to reconstruct building and a detailed report came to be submitted on 7.1.2019 attached along with the photographs and said report along with photographs are part of Annexure-IV. Original petitioner in addition to it has also got Non-Destructive testing done by M.K. Soil Laboratory and report of such laboratory has also clearly opined that property in question, i.e. flats are of about 45 years old and test result of rebound hammer and ultrasonic pulse velocity tests indicate that quality of concrete/building is very bad and doubtful and in turn, has also opined to get structural engineer’s report at the earliest. Petitioner society then on 29.3.2019 submitted structural engineer report and soil test report to the respondent corporation and requested again to take necessary steps by submitting representation. But, then authorities did not respond to the same but by passage of time, out of 78 members of petitioner society, 65 members have signed MoU and process for 9 other consenting members for signing MoU was under process as some of them are living abroad and as such, 74 members out of 78 have signed the notarized consent letter agreeing for redevelopment and overall consensus, almost in majority have generated for redevelopment instead of repairs. Original respondent Nos. 5 to 9 initially did not agree for redevelopment,