Sai Krupa Co-Op. Hsg. Society Ltd vs Osho Developer And 4 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 649 Bom

         Digitally signed
         by VIDYA
VIDYA    SURESH AMIN
SURESH   Date:
         2022.01.19
AMIN     16:51:22
         +0530




                                                                                        14.CARBPL1097_2022.doc

                            Vidya Amin

                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                     ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                             COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 1097 OF 2022

                                     Sai Krupa Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.         ... Petitioner
                                           V/s.
                                     M/s. Osho Developer & Ors.                         ... Respondents

                                     Mr. J.S. Kini i/b. Ms. Sapna Krishnappa for the petitioner.
                                     Mr. Ankit Lohia a/w. Mr. Satyen Vora, Mr. Sanmish Gala for respondent
                                     no. 1.
                                     Mr. D.V. Murthy for respondent no. 3.
                                     Mr. A.P. Jha for respondent no. 4.

                                                                CORAM : G.S.KULKARNI, J.

DATE : 18 January, 2022

P.C.:

1. Mr. Kini, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that

respondent no. 4-Pragati Sudhir Bhide is in possession of one of the

tenement in the premises of the Society. Respondent no. 3-Satish Gopal

Bhide is brother-in-law of Pragati Bhide. There are also some other

members of the family.

2. From the submissions of Mr. Murthy and Mr. Jha, it appears that

apart from Pragati Bhide, other family members are claiming rights in

respect of the tenement as occupied by respondent no. 4-Pragati Bhide,

which was originally owned by deceased Gopal Bhide, who was father

of respondent no. 3-Satish Bhide and father-in-law of respondent no. 4-

Pragati Bhide.

14.CARBPL1097_2022.doc

3. Today the question before the Court is limited to the handing

over of the tenement and/or vacating the same for the purpose of

redevelopment. It is stated that respondent no. 4-Pragati Sudhir Bhide

is in occupation and she would be required to vacate the tenement for

the purpose of redevelopment. As she would be dishoused, as she

being called upon to vacate the tenement, she would also be entitled to

the rent being offered by respondent no. 1-developer for availing of the

alternate premises till the redevelopment is complete and till she is put

in possession of the permanent alternate premises, which would be

offered by the petitioner-society and respondent no. 1-developer.

4. Insofar as the rights of respondent no. 3-Satish Gopal Bhide and

for that matter, any other members of the Bhide family, to claim a share

in the said redeveloped premises is concerned, it is always open for

them to file appropriate proceedings in a manner known to law if they

intend to assert their rights qua such tenement. If they assert such

rights in any proceedings, such proceedings would always be

independent from any issue qua the re-development which is now

resorted by the Society by appointing respondent no.1-developer being

a dispute interse between such parties. Accordingly, respondent no. 4

would be required to vacate the premises as and when requested by the

petitioner-Society, which shall however be subject to payment of rent to

14.CARBPL1097_2022.doc

respondent no. 4-Pragati Sudhir Bhide and an agreement to be entered

for a permanent alternate accommodation. However, such agreement

shall be subject to the rights being asserted by any other member of

respondent no. 4's family, as may be permissible to them in law and the

finality which may be brought about in that regard under any judgment

and decree of the Competent Court. Accordingly, the Society as well as

respondent no.1 shall enter into an appropriate agreement with

respondent no. 4.

5. Mr. Lohia, learned counsel for respondent no. 1-developer

informs that the post-dated cheques of 11 months of rent are already

handed over to the Society. Mr. Kini would verify this position. If the

post-dated cheques are already handed over to the Society, then it is for

the Society to request the members to vacate the premises.

6. Insofar as the agreement for the permanent alternate

accommodation is concerned, Mr. Lohia, on instructions, would submit

that modalities in that regard would be worked out and the details in

regard to the same shall be placed on record by an affidavit to be filed

by his clients, which be filed on or before the adjourned date of

hearing. Mr. Lohia also states that his clients shall complete all such

formalities also in respect of respondent nos. 2 to 5.

14.CARBPL1097_2022.doc

7. Mr. Kini has informed that after this petition was served on

respondent no. 2-Sameer Vasant Gavad, he has expressed his

willingness to vacate the premises, hence, no order would be required

to be passed against respondent no. 2.

8. Respondent no. 5 despite service is not represented. The Court

would permit Mr. Kini to issue fresh notice to respondent no. 5, so that

on the adjourned date of hearing, respondent no. 5 is represented and

can be heard. In the event, despite service if the respondent no. 5 is

not represented, the Court shall hear the parties who are appearing and

pass appropriate orders.

9. Stand over to 1 February, 2022.

(G.S.KULKARNI, J.)