Bombay High Court
Zee Housecon Pvt Ltd vs Dhiraj Gala And Anr on 30 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:4551-DB
Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11332 OF 2024
1. Dhiraj Gala
2. Amol Ashok Manjarekar ....Petitioners
: Versus :
1. Divisional Joint Registrar
Co-operative Societies
2. Dy. Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, K-East
3. Sundar Ravi Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd. ....Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 16100 OF 2024
(For Impleadment and Intervention)
Zee Housecon Private Limited .... Applicant
In the matter between
1. Dhiraj Gala
2. Amol Ashok Manjarekar ....Petitioners
: Versus :
1. Divisional Joint Registrar
Co-operative Societies
2. Dy. Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, K-East
3. Sundar Ravi Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd. ....Respondents
Page No.1 of 17
30 January 2025
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2025 22:37:44 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Bhavin Gala with Mr. Dilip S. Kulkarni, for the Petitioner.
Ms. A.A. Nadkarni, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State.
Mr. Sanjay Jain with Mr. Bhavik Lallan and Ms. Tejashree Parab i/by. Rajesh
Sharma & Associates, for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Jugal Haria i/b Ms. Laxmi Late, for the Applicant-Intervenor in
IA/16100/2024.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Judg. Resd. On : 22 January 2025.
Judg. Pron. On : 30 January 2025.
JUDGMENT :
1) Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order
dated 5 March 2024 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar dismissing
Revision Application No. 626/2021 preferred by them and confirming
the order dated 9 September 2021 passed by the Deputy Registrar. The
Deputy Registrar had rejected Petitioner’s complaint alleging
mismanagement and defaults committed by Respondent No.3-Society
in regard to implementation of the proposal for redevelopment of
society’s building.
2) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that one Sundarbai
owned and possessed land admeasuring 614.55 sq.mtrs bearing CTS
No.996, 996/1 to 5, Village-Vile Parle, Taluka-Andheri Mumbai
Suburban District. It appears that there were two tenanted structures on
the said land comprising of 6 and 3 tenants. Redevelopment of the
tenanted structures comprising of 6 tenants was carried out vide
Development Agreement dated 29 November 1989, under which three
Page No.2 of 17
30 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/01/2025 22:37:44 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
additional floors were added on existing ground plus one structure by
constructing five flats, which were sold to flat purchasers. This resulted
in 6 original tenants residing at ground and first floors and 5 flat
purchasers residing at 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors of same building. It appears
that the 5 flat purchasers formed and registered Sundar Ravi Co-op.
Hsg. Soc. Ltd, as an exceptional case since only 5 flat purchasers were
available for formation of the Society. Out of the said five flat
purchasers, two flats are purchased by the Petitioners, who are original
members of the Society. The land owners/Mhapsekar Family executed
Deed of Conveyance in the year 2013 in favour of M/s. Zee Housecon
Private Limited (Zee Housecon). The developer-Zee Housecon began
the process of redevelopment of the property and executed agreements
for allotment of permanent alternate accommodation (PAAA) with the
nine tenants in the newly constructed building in the year 2021. On 29
May 2021, the General Body of Respondent No.3-Society adopted a
Resolution admitting the original nine tenants in whose favour PAAA
were executed by the Developer- Zee Housecon as members of the
Society. Petitioners filed complaint before the Deputy Registrar, Co-
operative Societies alleging irregularities in the redevelopment process
adopted by the Society. In the said complaint, Petitioner alleged that the
nine persons have been illegally admitted as members of the Society.
The Deputy Registrar however disposed of the complaint by order
dated 9 September 2021 not interfering with the decision for enrollment
of new members as well selection of the developer for undertaking
redevelopment process. The Deputy Registrar granted liberty to the
Petitioners to approach the Co-operative Court to challenge the
decisions taken by the General Body of the Society. Petitioners filed
Revision Application No.626/2021 before the Divisional Joint Registrar
challenging Deputy Registrar’s order dated 9 September 2021. During
pendency of the Revision Application, one of the Petitioners
Page No.3 of 17
30 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/01/2025 22:37:44 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
simultaneously approached Co-operative Court and filed Dispute
No.62/2022 challenging elections of the Managing Committee and
prayed that election to the Managing Committee be held only after final
decision of the Revision Application No.626/2021. It appears that the
said Dispute filed before the Co-operative Court is pending. The
Divisional Joint Registrar has dismissed the Revision preferred by the
Petitioners by his order dated 5 March 2024. Accordingly, Petitioners
have filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar.
3) I have heard Mr. Gala, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioners. He would submit that the Deputy Registrar has erred in
rejecting the complaint filed by the Petitioners and the Divisional Joint
Registrar has failed to correct the errors committed by the Deputy
Registrar in exercise of revisionary jurisdiction. He would submit that
the nine persons admitted as members of the Society are merely tenants
and they could not have been admitted as members in absence of any
document of title. He would invite my attention to the agenda for the
General Body Meeting dated 29 March 2021 in which the agenda was
for admission of ‘tenants’ as members. That even in the Resolution, the
said nine members are referred to as ‘tenants’. That thus the Society has
never disputed the fact that the said nine persons are merely tenants in
respect of the premises in occupation. That there is no provision in law
which permits admission of a mere tenant as a member of a cooperative
society. He would submit that in a co-operative housing society, the
membership is essentially referable to ownership of flat or a unit in
society’s building. That the person who does not even own any flat or
unit in society’s building is not entitled to become its member. He
would rely upon Model Bye-Law No. 19(a)(iii) and (vi) adopted by the
Society under which ownership of flat by a person desirous of
Page No.4 of 17
30 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/01/2025 22:37:44 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
becoming a member is a precondition for grant of membership. That
under the bye-laws, membership cannot be accorded in absence of
document of title. He would submit that the premises in occupation of
the said nine persons are owned by Zee Housecon and therefore the
owner alone could be admitted as a member. He would submit that
mere execution of PAAA in favour of the tenants do not make them
owners in respect of the premises, which are now in their occupation.
That PAAA merely confers ownership in respect of the alternate
accommodation as and when constructed. That membership of the
Society cannot be granted merely on the strength of a contingent event
of the tenant’s acquiring ownership in respect of the flats proposed to
be constructed. Mr. Gala would therefore submit that the impugned
orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and the Divisional Joint
Registrar suffer from gross non-application of mind and perversity and
are liable to be set aside.
4) The petitions are opposed by Mr. Jain, the learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.3-Society. He would submit that as of
now, there are 14 members of the Society and except the two
Petitioners, rest of the 12 members have resolved to get the plot
redeveloped through the developer-Zee Housecon. That Petitioners are
deliberately instituting litigation with a view to circumvent the effect of
majority decision by the members to carry out redevelopment of the
building. He would submit that there are two structures on the plot, out
of which one is occupied by three erstwhile tenants, whereas, the
second structure is occupied by six erstwhile tenants on ground and
first floor and five flat purchasers on second, third and fourth floor.
That therefore it is impossible to carry out redevelopment of the
property without taking on board the erstwhile tenants. That the
Page No.5 of 17
30 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/01/2025 22:37:44 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
Society has therefore rightly admitted them as members with a view to
ensure smooth redevelopment of the property.
5) Mr. Jain would further submit that the nine persons are
admitted as members of the Society have no longer retained their
capacity as tenants and have upgraded themselves as owners by virtue
of PAAA executed in their favour by the developer. After execution of
PAAA, they are entitled to own flats in the redeveloped building on par
with rest of the five flat purchasers. Therefore, the rights and
entitlement of the erstwhile tenants stand on the same pedestal as that
of the five flat purchasers. He would further submit that even in respect
of the five flat purchasers, what is executed in their favour is mere
Agreements for Sale under the provisions of Section 4 of Maharashtra
Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale,
Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA) and such agreements do
not make them owners. That MOFA recognises the principle of
purchase of mere occupancy rights of the building and the building is
ultimately to be owned by the collective body. That therefore the
assertion of the Petitioners that they are owners of flats and the nine
persons are merely tenants is itself fallacious. That as on today, both the
owners, as well as the nine newly incoming members are armed with
registered agreements in their favour and therefore the Society has
rightly admitted the said nine persons as its members. Mr. Jain would
pray for dismissal of the petition.
6) Mr. Haria would appear on behalf of the Intervenor-Zee
Housecon who has filed Interim Application No. 16100/2024 seeking
intervention in the petition for opposing the same. Mr. Haria would
adopt the submissions of Mr. Jain and would pray for dismissal of the
petition.
Page No.6 of 17 30 January 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2025 22:37:44 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC 7) I have also Mr. Nadkarni, learned AGP appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 who would also oppose the petition and
support the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint
Registrar.
8) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my
consideration.
9) The present case presents a unique conundrum where one
out of the two structures is a composite structure. In one of the
structures, there were only three erstwhile tenants, whereas in the other
structure comprising of ground plus one floors, there were six erstwhile
tenants. It appears that the then owners-Mhapsekars implemented
development of the plot in the year 1980 and added three floors to the
structure in which there were six erstwhile tenants. In those additional
floors, (second, third and fourth floors), five flats were constructed
which were sold to five flat purchasers. Thus, one out of the two
structures on the plot became a composite structure comprising of six
erstwhile tenants on ground and first floor and five flat purchasers on
second to fourth floors. The five purchasers formed and registered
Sundar Ravi CHSL. It is common ground that Respondent No.3-Society
was registered as an exceptional case as 10 flat purchasers were not
available for formation of the Society. The condition was therefore
relaxed and accordingly, Respondent No.3-Society was permitted to be
formed and registered with only 5 members. Thus, there were nine
erstwhile tenants occupying their respective premises and five
members of the Society who had purchased the flats. Original land
owners-Mhapsekars sold and conveyed the land in favour of
Intervenor- Zee Housecon vide registered Deed of Conveyance and
Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 3 May 2013 under which
Page No.7 of 17
30 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/01/2025 22:37:44 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
Zee Housecon has become owner of the land, buildings as well as the
FSI in respect thereof. Zee Housecon negotiated with the nine tenants
and agreed to provide them permanent alternate accommodations on
ownership basis in the redeveloped building. Accordingly, PAAA were
executed with all the nine erstwhile tenants. One of the PAAA executed
in favour of Narayan D. Parmar is placed on record under which Zee
Housecon has agreed to allot Flat No.102 admeasuring 505 sq.ft carpet
area for office use on the first floor of the building to be constructed by
it including additional area of 65 sq.ft on payment of Rs. 30,00,000/-.
The relevant covenant of PAAA dated 9 February 2021 reads thus :
2. In lieu and in consideration of the TENANT/s consenting for the
Re-Development of the Property and agreeing to co-operate with the
Development and being in use and occupation and in possession and
ownership of Flat No.4 Admeasuring about 400 sq.ft. Carpet Area
using as office including balcony and other utility area on the First
Floor, the Landlords agree to allot the New Flat No. 102 Admeasuring
about 505 sq.ft. Carpet area including Fungible F.S.I on the 1 st floor as
office in the building/s to be constructed by the Landlords, which
shall include Additional Area free of costs and also purchase of
additional 65 Sq Ft Carpet Area for Rs 30,00,000/- on ownership basis
by demolition of the existing structure and re-development of the said
property, which is presently known as ” Sunder Villa ” and after re-
development of the same, it shall be known as ” ZEE SUNDER”, based
on the unanimous consent and permission of each and every Tenant
including the TENANT/s herein and the said Society. The said
allotment of the new Flat to the TENANT/s by the Landlords in lieu
of Existing Area and/or acquisition of Extra Area by the TENANT/s
by payment of compensation and/or for surrender / relinquishment
of existing area by the TENANT/s to the Landlords for
Compensation/Monetary Value, is as set out hereunder:
Sq Ft.
Old Carpet Area of the Existing Flat : 400
Area Relinquished / Surrendered of Existing Flat : 80
Net Area after Relinquished/Surrendered of Existing : 320
Flat
Carpet Area offered by Developers Free of Cost :120
Purchased Additional Area :65
Carpet Area of the New Flat Including Fungible F.S.I. :505
New Flat Wing and Flat Number :102
New Flat Floor :1stPage No.8 of 17
30 January 2025::: Uploaded on – 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/01/2025 22:37:44 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
10) Thus, the erstwhile nine tenants got armed with PAAAs
executed in their favour, under which they became entitled to own
flats/units in the newly developed building on ownership basis. It
appears that one of the erstwhile tenants, Mr. Narayan Parmar paid
consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- for purchase of additional carpet area.
11) Respondent No.3-Society which earlier comprised of only
five members, decided to participate in the redevelopment process
undertaken by the developer- Zee Housecon and convened Special
General Body meeting on 29 March 2021. There were two agendas to be
taken up for discussion viz. redevelopment of the Society building and
considering applications made by the erstwhile tenants as members of
the Society. Since Respondent No.3-Society decided to participate in the
redevelopment process, which was kickstarted by Zee Housecon by
executing PAAA with the erstwhile tenants, a unique conundrum got
created where the redevelopment process could not be carried out
without the society members and erstwhile tenants coming together. To
solve this conundrum, the Society decided to admit the nine erstwhile
tenants who were armed with PAAA’s executed in their favour as its
members. A decision was apparently taken to ensure that collective
decision is taken by the five erstwhile members of the society and nine
erstwhile tenants through one collective body. This is why the Society
adopted the Resolution in the General Body Meeting held on 9 March
2021 to admit the nine erstwhile tenants as its members. The Society
also resolved to participate in the redevelopment process undertaken
by Zee Housecon.
12) It appears that the two Petitioners are opposing the
redevelopment process and voted against the Resolution. However, the
Resolutions for admission of the erstwhile tenants was approved by
Page No.9 of 17
30 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/01/2025 22:37:44 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
majority of the three members. The redevelopment process is also
supported by the nine new incoming members, as well as by three old
members. The position that stands today is that out of the total 14
members of Respondent No.3-Society, 12 members support the
redevelopment process, whereas the two Petitioners are opposing the
same.
13) Faced with the difficulty of the Resolution being adopted
by majority, both for admission of the nine members, as well as for
participation in the redevelopment process, the Petitioners initially filed
complaint dated 18 June 2021 before the Deputy Registrar.
14) The broad grievances raised by the Petitioner in complaint
dated 18 June 2021 filed before the Deputy Registrar was with regard to
the redevelopment process undertaken by the Society. In that
complaint, Petitioners also raised a grievance of admission of nine
members without their consent. The relevant averments made in the
complaint relating to admission of nine new members in complaint
dated 18 June 2021 reads thus :
5. The society has allegedly admitted 9(nine) members to the society.
How is this possible? Two of the existing members the undersigned
Mr. Dhiraj Gala and Mr. Amol Manjrekar have not agreed to the
admission of any new member. Additionally, Mr. Gala is the
Chairman of the society. The Society is holding some very valuable
development rights and legal rights to the underlying land. How can
any new member be admitted to the society without unanimous
approval by all 5 (five) existing members? Also, we have been
registered with special statutory provision and permission and hence
we have to be strictly compliant for this.
15) Thus, the only grievance made by the Petitioners about
admission of nine members was lack of unanimity by all the five
members for approving their admission. Beyond this, no contention
was raised by the Petitioners that the said nine persons lacked inherent
Page No.10 of 17
30 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/01/2025 22:37:44 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
eligibility for being admitted as members of Respondent No.3-Society.
The Deputy Registrar rejected the complaint by order dated 9
September 2021 holding that the Resolution for admission of nine
persons was adopted after due discussion and with majority of
members. Before the Deputy Registrar, Petitioners never disputed
eligibility of the said nine persons for being admitted as Society’s
members and therefore there was no occasion for the Deputy Registrar
to go into the issue as to whether mere tenants can be admitted as
Society’s members. Even before the Divisional Joint Registrar,
Petitioner raised only following five grounds in support of challenge to
the order dated 9 September 2021 :
GROUNDS
1. The Respondent No.1 has seriously erred in passing the proper
Order within the meaning of ‘Order/Judgment’. The Respondent No.
1 has stated his observations and inferences; Thus, the Respondent
No. 1 has vehemently failed to ‘adjudicate’ the complaint dated 18 th
June, 2021.
2. Respondent No. 2 has held the so called Special General Body
Meetings dated 29th March, 2021; 22nd May, 2021 and 3rd June, 2021;
without proper compliance of the statutory provisions of The
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; the Rules 1961
thereunder and the Model Bye-Laws of Cooperative Housing
Societies-2014.
3. Respondent No. 2 has admitted the tenants/occupants as the bona-
fide members of the Respondent No. 2 without proper compliance as
contemplated under the relevant Act.
4. The prohibitions/restrictions notified by the Department of
Cooperation and Textiles, Maharashtra State on the holding of the
General Body Meetings due to pandemic of Co-VID-19 have been
grossly violated by the Respondent No. 2.
5. The very presence of M/s. Zee Infra Group is without any proper
process and ought to have been prohibited unless and until the proper
process was complied with.
16) Thus, no specific ground was raised about lack of eligibility
for nine persons for being admitted as members of the Society.
17) Thus, both the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar as
well as the Divisional Joint Registrar essentially centered around the
Page No.11 of 17
30 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/01/2025 22:37:44 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
alleged irregularities in the development process and the eligibility of
nine persons for being admitted as members of the Society was not
really in issue. This appears to be the reason why the Divisional Joint
Registrar also did not have occasion to go into the issue of eligibility of
the said nine persons to be admitted as members of the Society. The
Divisional Joint Registrar accordingly concentrated on the allegations of
arbitrary and unilateral decisions/resolutions and recorded following
findings :
Conclusion:-
I have perused the Revision Application filed by the Applicants,
relevant papers/ documents placed on record and the impugned
letter dated 09/09/2021 of the lower Authority.
The Applicants in the present case has mainly raised the grounds
that, the Appellants have filed complaint dated 18/06/2021 before
Respondent No. 1 and brought to notice of the Respondent No. 1 the
various defaults caused by the Respondent No. 2 through purported
Secretary and Treasurer and how the purported Secretary and
Treasurer are/ were taking arbitrary and unilateral
decisions/resolutions without regard to the statutory provisions.
On the aforesaid ground it seems that, the society has been
registered on 11/12/1997 as a special case of only 5 members. The
carpet area of the society is less than 600 sq. ft. and the number of
members is less than 10, therefore, as per the Government order dated
10/03/1995, the requirement of minimum 10 persons for registration
of co-operative housing society was relaxed as a special matter and
the said society was registered.
Further, it appears that the special general meeting of the society
was held on 29/03/2021 in the presence of 03 members out of 05
members of the said society, after discussing the merits of the
application received by the committee for the membership of total 09
tenants, it was agreed to approve the membership of the society to the
09 tenants. Also, a resolution was passed to appoint M/s. Zee
Housecon Pvt. Ltd. as a Developer for redevelopment of the society.
Since the membership was granted to 9 tenants in the special general
meeting date 29/03/2021, Mr. Tudhar Bharat Parekh and Shri. Dhruv
Kirod Rathod has been appointed as two vacant committee members
in the committee of society in the special general meeting of the
society held on 22/05/2021. Further, it seems that out of total 14 unit
holders on the said plot, 12 unit holders, tenants/ members are,
agreed for redevelopment process of the society building. Therefore,
the Respondent Deputy Registrar vide impugned letter dated
09/09/2021 disposed of the complaint filed by the Applicants herein.
Page No.12 of 17 30 January 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2025 22:37:44 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
In view of aforesaid inferences, the Applicants have not
established their case by valid grounds and hence, the present case
deserves to be dismissed. Whereas, on the other side, the Respondent
Deputy Registrar after following due process of law has correctly
issued impugned letter. Therefore, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned letter.
18) Contrary to the real case of the Petitioners raised before the
Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar, Mr. Gala improved
upon the same before this Court. He has strenuously argued the point
of illegality in admission of nine persons as members though no
specific ground is raised about eligibility of said nine persons for being
admitted as members even in the present petition. In this regard, the
grounds raised in the petition are reproduced thus:
24. GROUNDS:
A. That the Impugned Order dated 15th March, 2024 is ex facie illegal,
perverse, void, unconstitutional, fraudulent, magnified, bad in law
and deserves to be quashed and set aside:
B. That the Impugned Order dated 15th March, 2024 is in breach of the
statutory provisions under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,
1960 and the Rules 1961 and the Model Bye-Laws of Cooperative
Housing Societies-2014;
C. That the Impugned Order dated 15th March, 2024 was passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice;
D. That the Hon’ble Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Konkan Division, Mumbai has failed to consider the spirit and soul of
the Revision Appeal bearing the no RA/686/2022 filed by the
Petitioners before DJR;
E. That the Hon’ble DJR failed to take the serious cognizance of the
wilful negligence caused by the Respondent No 2 and Respondent No
3 and serious commissions and/or omissions caused by Respondent
No 3; which resulted in irreversible and irreparable loss/damage
caused to the Petitioners for none of their defaultF. That the Impugned Order is arbitrary and unreasonable;
G. That the Impugned Order is perverse. The findings contained in
the impugned order are contrary to the material or record before
Respondent No 1
H. That the Impugned Order is vitiated by non-application of mind;
Page No.13 of 17 30 January 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2025 22:37:44 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
I. That the Impugned Order is therefore liable to be struck down
19) Therefore, it is not even necessary to decide the issue of
correctness of the decision taken by the General Body of the Society to
admit nine members as its members in absence of the said point being
raised before the Deputy and Divisional Joint Registrars or supported
by pleadings in the present petition.
20) However, since the point is strenuously argued before this
Court and since this Court has not found any merit in the submission
about illegality in admission of nine persons as members, it would be
appropriate to deal with this issue so as to prevent any further litigation
in this regard.
21) So far as the nine persons, who were erstwhile tenants are
concerned, they are now armed with PAAAs executed in their favour.
Therefore, they have ceased to be ordinary tenants and have come on
almost the same pedestal as that of original five members of the Society
as both of them would ultimately be entitled to flats in the newly
constructed building. The objective of formation of Society and to admit
members is to ensure effective management of the land and the
building. One of the objectives is also to secure conveyance of the land
and building and acquisition of ownership thereof by the Society. There
can be no denial of the fact that the erstwhile nine tenants, as well the
original five members of the Society are ultimately going to be the flat
owners in the newly constructed building. The Society is otherwise
bound to admit the erstwhile nine tenants as members of the Society. In
that view of the matter, Petitioners cannot be permitted to adopt a
hypertechnical approach by contending that the said nine persons are
yet to acquire ownership in respect of the existing building and hence
Page No.14 of 17
30 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/01/2025 22:37:44 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
ineligible to become members of the Society. Once the broad objective
behind formation of Society and admission of members is borne in
mind, I do not see any defect in admission of such nine tenants as
members of the Society, which would ensure that a collective decision
is taken by all the stakeholders with regard to the redevelopment
process, as well as management of newly constructed building.
22) Reliance of Mr. Gala on provisions of Bye-law No.19
dealing with ‘Conditions for Membership’ does not cut any ice. Bye-law
No.19(a)(iii) and (vi) provides thus :
(iii) applicant has given the application, as prescribed the particulars
in regard to any house, plot or flat owned by him or any of the
Members of his family, anywhere in the area of operation of the
Society.
(vi) applicant has submitted along with the application for
Membership of the Society, a certified copy of the agreement, duly
stamped entered into by him with the Promoter (Builder) or transferor
under Section 4 of the Ownership Flats Act.
23) One of the documents which needs to be submitted for
seeking admission as member of the Society is the Agreement executed
with the Promoter. The erstwhile nine tenants are armed with such
agreements and the same can be relied upon for the purpose of their
admission as members of the Society. In the unique facts and
circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to accept the
proposition sought to be canvassed by Mr. Gala that PAAA executed in
favour of the nine erstwhile tenants do not make them owners of
existing premises and that the PAAA does not constitute document of
ownership of flat. The issue in this regard is kept open to be decided in
appropriate case.
Page No.15 of 17
30 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/01/2025 22:37:44 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
24) In the present case, the decision taken by the General Body
of the Society merely ensures that all the stakeholders are taken on
board and collective decisions are taken in the matter of redevelopment
of the building. There is no dispute to the position that the nine
erstwhile tenants would someday become members of the Society.
What Mr. Gala expects is that for the time being the Developer- Zee
Housecon should be made member in respect of the nine premises and
as and when the construction of the new building is complete,
membership can be transferred in favour of the said nine erstwhile
tenants. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not
inclined to direct adoption of such methodology for the following
reasons :
(i) Petitioners are minority members opposed to redevelopment
of the building.
(ii) The real intention behind adopting hypertechnical approach
of opposing admission of nine erstwhile tenants as members
of the Society is aimed at scuttling the redevelopment process.
(iii) Petitioners never questioned eligibility of nine erstwhile
tenants to become members of the Society either before the
Deputy Registrar or before the Divisional Joint Registrar.
(iv) The Resolution adopted by the General Body of the Society in
meeting held on 29 March 2021 admitting nine erstwhile
tenants as Society members has not been challenged in
Dispute Application No. 62/2022 filed by one of the
Petitioners before the Co-operative Court.
(v) The erstwhile nine tenants would otherwise become members
of the Society at some point of time in future.
Page No.16 of 17
30 January 2025
::: Uploaded on – 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/01/2025 22:37:44 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-11332-2024-FC
25) Considering the above position, I am not inclined to
exercise extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of
Article 227 of the Constitution of India for interfering in the impugned
orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar.
The Writ Petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed with
no order as to costs.
NEETA [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2025.01.30 19:17:26 +0530 Page No.17 of 17 30 January 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2025 22:37:44 :::
[ad_1]
Source link