Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6710
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ALOK ARADHE, CJ, Sandeep V. Marne, J
Ritesh Haldar – Appellant
Versus
Elite Housing LLP and Ors. – Respondent
Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No.14486 of 2025 | Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No.15542 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Mr. Nivit Srivastava, Ms. Sneha Patil, Mr. Yash Chedda, Brena Gala, Mr. Rohit Bamne, Mr. Pravin Samdani, Mr. Sahil Saiyed, Mr. Amit Padwal
For the Respondents: Mr. Rohaan Cama, Mr. Kyrys Modi, Mr. Shanmukh Puranik, Ms. Sunita Serrao, Mr. Krisandra Hegde, Mr. Nimay Dave, Ms. Nitya Shah, Ms. Aditi Bhargavan, Ms. Shitha Jain
Court emphasized the procedure for executing redevelopment agreements to balance ownership rights with possessory rights during redevelopment.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37 - Dispute over ownership and possession of Flat amid redevelopment - Court's ruling on execution of tripartite Agreement in the name of actual owner, with transit rent to be paid to occupant. (Paras 12, 13, 16)
(B) Interim Measures - Claimupholding rights of actual occupants under redevelopment while ensuring ownership disputes do not interfere with possession rights. (Paras 8, 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appeals are against an order allowing interim measures for redevelopment where possession was a point of contention between siblings and spouse regarding a flat.
Findings of Court:
Execution of redevelopment agreements in owners’ name with transit rents allocated to those in actual possession is supported by established legal principles.
Issues: Determination of rightful ownership versus possessory rights amid successful redevelopment measures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of existing occupants and balancing equitable claims in this matter of ownership.
Result: Appeals partly allowed and judged for the Appellant-Ritesh, with specific orders concerning possession and compensation derived from prior rulings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership dispute amid redevelopment. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal representation and claims. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. rights of occupancy before eviction. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. execution of agreements in owner's name with conditions. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. final order and modifications granted. (Para 16 , 19) |
Judgment: (Per Sandeep V. Marne J.)
1) Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 14486/2025 is not on board. Upon request made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken on board and heard along with Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 15542/2025. Both the Appeals are admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, they are taken up for final disposal.
2) These two appeals are filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) challenging the judgment and order dated 16 April 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Petition filed by Respondent No.1 seeking interim measures under Section 9 of the Act. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has granted liberty to Respondent No. 1 to approach the Court Receiver for execution of tripartite Agreement in respect of the Flat in question for carrying out redevelopment of the building, with further direction to take over possession thereof and hand over the same to Respondent No. 1-Developer for demolition of the building. The impugned Order directs payment of all amounts arising out of package towards redevelopment of the flat, including the corpus and transit rent, to be paid to Smt. Leena Rohitesh Haldar (Leena), who is found to be in possession of said Flat. Upon completion of the redevelopment process, possession of new flat is also directed to be handed over to Leena. Two of the Haldar family members – Ritesh Haldar (Ritesh) and Rohitesh Haldar (Rohitesh) are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16 April 2025 and have filed the present appeals.
3) A very brief factual background leading to filing of the present Appeals is stated thus:
Flat No.12, situated in the building ‘Spectrum’ Road No. 14-B, Khar (W), Mumbai (the Flat) is the subject matter of controversy. Haldar family comprises of three brothers: Ritesh, Rohitesh and Rajesh. Leena is the wife of Rohitesh. The Flat is claimed to have been purchased by Ritesh, but at the time of applying for society membership, it is claimed that the name of mother-Sabita Haldar was also included in respect of the flat. Ritesh claims that after marriage between his brother Rohitesh with Leena, he permitted the duo to occupy the flat as gratuitous licensees. On 8th May 2002, the mother passed away and Ritesh claims exclusive ownership in respect of the flat, whereas his two brothers-Rohitesh and Rajesh claim that the mother had 50% share in the flat and after her death, her share has devolved on to them. Though Rohitesh and Leena have been occupying the flat (as gratuitous licensees, as per Ritesh), there appears to be a marital discord between the couple and Leena claims that her husband-Rohitesh no longer occupies the flat, in which she resides along with her two children. It is claimed that Rohitesh owns a separate flat in the building Sangeeta Apartments, in which he resides separately from his wife. The building in which the flat is situated has been taken up for redevelopment and the society has executed agreement with the developer (Elite Homes LLP) on 31 July 2024. Ritesh claims that Rohitesh has surrendered his alleged 16.67% share in the flat, which he was erroneously claiming, vide surrender deed dated 24 February 2025. The developer has called upon Ritesh to handover possession of the flat for demolition of the building by executing an Agreement for Permanent Alternate Accommodation (PAAA). Ritesh is willing to handover possession of the flat to the developer and to execute the PAAA. However, Leena has raised a claim that the flat is her matrimonial house and staked a claim to receive rental compensation from the developer.
