The Bombay High Court has asked seven members against redevelopment of Taruvel CHSL building to vacate their flats or pay INR 5 lakhs within two week. When 8 out of 84 members refused to vacate their flats, DEM Homes LLP took the matter to the court, after which one vacated his flat. Advocates of the members clarify that the developer is not willing to provide them with permanent alternate accommodation while the developer advocates argue that an agreement will be executed with them and treat them equally. The Justice Doctor said that the argument presented by the member is incorrect.
The Bombay High Court instructed seven members of a housing society to pay INR 5 lakhs in all in cost if they do not vacate their flats in a building, within two weeks, as these members' actions could disrupt the redevelopment of the building.
These members are residents of Taruvel CHSL building in Chakala, Andheri (East), against whom DEM Homes LLP has filed a petition to adjudicate the dispute between it and the members.
"The docket of this court continues to be flooded with several such matters where minority members continue to attempt to stymie redevelopment on grounds which are ex facie frivolous, untenable and contrary to the well-settled position in law," Justice Arif Doctor said.
According to a media report, a redevelopment agreement was executed between the developer and Taruvel CHSL in September 2023. In the following month, a VJTI structural audit declared that the building falls under C1 - dilapidated - category.
In March this year, the developer asked the residents to vacate their flats after acquiring intimation of disapproval. When 8 out of 84 members refused to vacate their flats, DEM Homes LLP took the matter to the court, after which one member vacated his flat.
Advocates Sarosh Barucha and Jay Vakil, who are representing the developer, said that grave prejudice has been caused to DEM Homes LLP as they began paying hardship compensation, rent, brokerage, and transportation charges to members who vacated their flats, majority of them are senior citizens. Kapadia added that dissenting members challenged the redevelopment and filed a suit in the city civil court, however, there is no stay.
Additionally, Advocates Narayan Bubna and Pooja Malik, representing three members, said the developer did not want to abide by providing permanent alternate accommodation for dissenting members. However, Justice Doctor said that the argument made is incorrect as Barucha clarified that the agreement will be executed with them and they will be treated equally as other members.
Justice Doctor decided to grant costs incurred in the petition when it was known that members would oppose the petition. The developer submitted INR 48 lakh in costs and the CHSL, INR 3 lakhs. He indicated that if any of the parties fail to comply, the costs will be shared by those who do not, implying that the expenses would be divided equally between the developer and the members who vacated their flats. He added that if the costs are not paid, then both parties can recover their money as overdue land revenue.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
