An article about " Minority members of housing society can not obstruct redevelopment: BHC "

Minority members of housing society cannot obstruct redevelopment: BHC

The Bombay High court has once again reiterated that the minority members cannot obstruct redevelopment of the apartment building. The court has appointed a court receiver to take possession of three flats from the owners who had objected to redevelopment in Santa Cruz building and hand over the apartments to thebuilder.

While passing the order the Justice R D Dhanuka has said – the three dissenting flat owners cannot stop the redevelopment, as more than 3/4^th majority of members have passed a resolution and agreed to appoint a developer on terms and conditions agreed upon in the development project. He has further said, the flat owners who are in a minority occupying three flats and a few garages, cannot be permitted to obstruct the society or majority members from implementing the redevelopment project. They have also not challenged the resolution passed by the society at its special annual general body meeting and all the resolutions are binding on them. They cannot be allowed to act contrary to the resolutions passed by the society’s general body.

Earlier judgments on similar cases were cited by the court and said that "merely because terms and conditions of development agreement were not acceptable to members in a minuscule minority, cannot be the basis not to abide by the decision of the overwhelming majority of the society's general body". The court also referred to judgments wherein it was ruled that – when a person becomes a cooperative society member he loses individuality and has no independent rights, except those given to him by rules and bye-laws.

The case pertained to an application filed by Calvin Properties, which had bid for and won a tender for redeveloping Green Fields Housing Society on S V Road in Santa Cruz (West). The apartment building was 48 years old with 34 flats and was in a dilapidated condition. In the agreement which was signed in 2010, the developer had agreed to reconstruct a building and re-house the flat-owners there. The developer had agreed to pay the flat-owners a total of nine Crores. Majority of flat owners i.e., 31 had agreed to vacate the flats by April 2013. Three flat owners had had claimed they were entitled to a larger area and had claimed that the agreement was not applicable to them as they had not signed the agreement.

The court ruled in favour of the developer and dismissed the pleas of the minority members and also rejected their contention that the dispute could only be heard by a cooperative court.