"How long must other members suffer:" Bombay High Court pulls up lone society member for refusing to vacate hazardous flat for redevelopment

The opposition of one solitary society member to the redevelopment of his society building which had been declared as hazardous and unfit for human habitation did not go down well with the Bombay High Court which reprimanded him while also taking strong objection to his conduct in court (Chirag Infra Projects Pvt Ltd. v. Vijay Jwala Coop. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Anr.)..The Court was approached by the builder, Chirag Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, aggrieved by the persistent opposition by society member, one Kondvilkar, who opposed the redevelopment project by filing several proceedings..Justice GS Patel came down heavily on Kondvilkar for refusing to vacate the building as he attempted to exhaust all possible legal remedies against the redevelopment plan, thereby making the other members of the society wait indefinitely.All the other society members had vacated to a temporary alternate accommodation so that the building could be redeveloped. ."How long must other members of the society, all of them equally part of the lower income group, suffer? How long must they wait for their redeveloped homes only in order to satisfy perhaps the ego or perhaps the ill-conceived notions in law by which Kondvilkar seems so enchanted? ...What makes Kondvilkar so special that no law applies to him other than the law that he chooses to apply," the Court said in its judgment..Justice Patel observed that neither had Kondvilkar assailed the society's resolution for redevelopment, nor had he challenged the development agreement in the present petition. ."He has arrogated to himself the power to sit alone, god-like, in appeal and supervision of the general body of the society of which he is a member," the Court said..The Court was extremely critical of Kondvilkar's attitude noting that he imagines that it is only he who can tell right from wrong, that it is only he who knows what is good for all, and that he is entitled without any assumption of liability to continually obstruct this redevelopment, put his fellow members at risk. ."He alone will decide what is to be done, by whom and when. He is not bound by arbitration law. He is not bound by cooperative law. He is not bound by any concept of justice. He is not bound to make restitution. He assumes no liability. He is not bound by anyone or anything, but everyone is bound by his slightest whim and fancy," the Court explained his attitude..The factual matrix leading to this plea was that the Respondent Co-operative Society, consisting of 20 members had resolved in 2014 that they will redevelop their building. A development agreement was signed to that effect..The society required a no-objection from the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (MHADA) which was only granted in 2019. However in the year 2018, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) declared the building as unsafe and unfit for human habitation after carrying out a structural audit..Kondvilkar opposed the reconstruction calling the entire proposal "illegal" on the ground that the building which was meant for people from the lower income group and redevelopment, therefore, required permission from the Social Welfare Department which was not obtained..MHADA imposed penalty upon him for obstructing the project which had written assent of the majority members of the Society. Kondvilkar challenged this order in the City Civil Court of Mumbai which denied any relief. Subsequently, an appeal against this order was filed and is pending, but no interim relief was granted in his favour..The Court was informed by Chirag Infra that they had obtained transit accommodation for the members and all the members will be accommodated in that till the completion of the project. It was also submitted that Kondvilkar had filed 13 proceedings against the redevelopment project, which included a challenge to the Society's resolution..Justice Patel however expressed that "decision taken by majority binds all." "The member loses his individual identity upon becoming a member, and his identity is subsumed within the society of which he is member... A person cannot both claim benefits of membership and yet deny the authority of the general body of the society to bind that member by a decision taken by the majority in a properly convened meeting," he added..He further stated that Kondvilkar could have challenged the meeting to be unlawful or illegal through the proper avenues available under the Co-operatives Societies Act but could not choose to flout the taken decisions..Kondvilkar however contended that since he was a non-signatory to the development agreement he could not be bound by the arbitration clause of the agreement. Relying upon a slew of judgments, Justice Patel concluded that minority members acting against the will of the majority was impermissible in law..The Court observed that Kondvilkar had failed to show the Court under which provision of law was permission from the Social Welfare Department a necessity, or how the Social Welfare Department was even concerned with a redevelopment proposal which usually falls under the town planning and municipal law..The Court, therefore, directed Kondvilkar to vacate his flat by April 30, 2021 observing that he cannot be allowed to drag his opposition indefinitely and has to be treated at par with the other members of the society. .The Court also permitted the Receiver to forcibly take possession of Kondvilkar's flat in case he does not vacate on his own. Justice Patel clarified that Kondvilkar will not be permitted to "undermine the authority of the court or the Rule of Law" by not complying with the order.."Any attempt by the 2nd Respondent to obstruct the Court Receiver’s department from taking possession, either by fling complaints or otherwise, will be treated as an act of contempt of court and will be dealt with as such. ...The police authorities at the Goregaon Police Station will not take cognizance of any complaint or allegation that the 2nd Respondent makes against any officer of this Court including the Court Receiver or the Court Receiver’s duly authorised representative," the Court warned. .Further, the Court in its order also noted that when it granted a last opportunity to Kondvilkar to volunteer a date for vacating the flat to avoid the directions for forcibly evicting him from the premises, the conduct of Kondvilkar was confrontational and abrasive. His conduct was in stark contrast to the conduct of other members of the society who did not display any agitation of any kind despite their weariness, the Court observed. ."He is adamant. It has to be his way, and no one, not even the High Court dare say otherwise. That is his conduct. And it is in stark contrast to the decency and courtesy of other members of the society who are in the far corner of the court, where they have remained seated in silence, not once interjecting, not once showing agitation of any kind, barely able to conceal their weariness and despair. There can be no doubt on which side justice and equity must fall," the order said..The Court also recorded its appreciation and offered it sympathies for Kondvilkar's counsel Divya B Parmar, who, the Court said, conducted the case creditably despite being in a difficult situation. "He has engaged an advocate, and a very competent one at that, for Ms Parmar has not only held her ground, putting her client’s case fairly, precisely and without agitation, but has repeatedly tried to counsel her client. He will not listen. Ms Parmar has my sympathies. Her task is unenviable. She has done her very best in an extremely difficult situation," the order said. .Advocates Amogh Singh, Bhavin Bhatia, Rohit Yadav & Moksha Doshi appeared for Chirag Infra Projects. Advocates Amol Joshi and Vinod Rane (Rane & Co.) appeared for the Society. .[Read Order]