Non co-operating members should be held accountable for delay in redevelopment of society building: Bombay High Court

Minority members of a co-operative society opposing redevelopment of the society building should be held accountable for the delay caused, the Bombay High Court suggested while ordering the non co-operating members to vacate their residential units for the redevelopment of the building [Choice Developers v. Pantnagar Pearl CHS Ltd. & Ors.].Single-judge Justice GS Kulkarni reiterated the settled position of law in its order, that the minority members cannot act against the will of the majority members of the society and obstruct redevelopment of the society buildling.The Court further opined that it was high time members comprehended that the grievances they raise during redevelopment are genuine and not just a ruse to delay the project.“There needs to be a safeguard against unscrupulous persons who raise frivolous grievances. If such obstructing members fail in proceedings, they would be accountable to the Society for the delay they are causing by such obstructive approach… In an extreme case in which the society and its majority members have severely suffered at the hands of a miniscule minority members of the Society, in such event, in my opinion it would be necessary for such members to bear in mind that they are accountable to the society in a manner known to law,” Justice Kulkarni suggested in his 28-page order..Justice Kulkarni opined that this approach of individual members to rake up issues only after redevelopment is conceived to stall redevelopment till their respective dispute is resolved is detrimental to the majority members.“…it cannot be conceived that till such rights of any such individual member are adjudicated the redevelopment at the sufferance of the majority of the members should wait. If this be the case redevelopment will never see the light of the day, apart from the fact it will completely defeat the mandate of the majority members,” the order stated..The Court was hearing a plea relating to the redevelopment of a 50-year-old dilapidated building of Pantnagar Pearl Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. where out of 30 units, 26 units had already been vacated.The majority consenting members of the society had agreed for the redevelopment in 2019 considering the dangerous condition of the building.3 members in the society holding the remaining 4 units were obstructing the redevelopment.Their point of contention was that the society was not granting them permission to use the residential premises for commercial purposes.Justice Kulkarni was informed that even though all three members had approached the civil court challenging the decision of the society, none of the obstructing respondents had any orders in their favour to stay the work towards redevelopment..The Court emphasized that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 (obstructing members) cannot take a position opposing the redevelopment, which is for the beneficial interest of all the members of the society.“They cannot cause a suffering to the other members who have already vacated. They also cannot foist a delay on the petitioner and the Society in commencement of the redevelopment work resulting in the project costs being increased every passing day which would be immensely prejudicial to the petitioner as also the society,” Justice Kulkarni highlighted.The Court stated that the obstructing members could not coerce the society to accept their request while the society was undergoing redevelopment..The Court concluded that the contention pertaining to the categorization of units as commercial units was a dispute between the society and members which ought to be raised before appropriate forum.“In any event, such a dispute in no manner can withhold the redevelopment and more particularly, when there is no prima facie material to show that the units occupied by respondent Nos.2 to 4 were at any point of time permitted to be converted into a commercial units…” the order recorded..The Court held that the obstructing respondents had no right to delay, defeat and prejudice the redevelopment by not vacating their respective units.“If interim orders are not passed, not only the petitioner but also the larger interest of the society will be seriously prejudiced by the stand taken by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 in not vacating their units,” the order concluded..[Read Order]