: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.645 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.911 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1239 OF 2007 IN S.C.SUIT NO.1297 OF 2007 Anthony D’Souza & Anr. ....Appellants V/s. Sundar Nagar Samadhan Co-op. . Hsg.Soc.Ltd. and others ....Respondents WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.974 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1334 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2810 OF 2007 IN S.C.SUIT NO.1819 OF 2007 Suhasini Bhalekar & Ors. ....Appellants V/s. Sundar Nagar Samadhan Co-op. . Hsg.Soc.Ltd. and others ....Respondents WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.975 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1335 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2811 OF 2007 IN S.C.SUIT NO.1820 OF 2007 D. Rajamani & Ors. ....Appellants V/s. Sundar Nagar Samadhan Co-op. . : 2 : Hsg.Soc.Ltd. and others ....Respondents WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.976 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1336 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2812 OF 2007 IN S.C.SUIT NO.1821 OF 2007 Wilfred Lobo & Ors. ....Appellants V/s. Sundar Nagar Samadhan Co-op. . Hsg.Soc.Ltd. and others ....Respondents Mr.Mihir Desai for the Appellants. Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel with Mr.S.B. Prabhavalkar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 23RD APRIL, 2008. P.C. : 1. The impugned order warrants no interference, despite the apparently drastic consequences thereof on the twelve Appellants in the above Appeals. The facts and circumstances of this case necessitated the order. The order is necessitated for the benefit especially of the first Respondent and 116 of its members whose interests would be irreparably and irretriably prejudiced by the denial of the reliefs. On the other hand the 12 Appellants will in fact get more than what : 3 : they are entitled to under the agreement. 2. There are nine buildings on the property. Each building has thirty two flats. There are therefore an aggregate of 288 flats in the nine buildings. There is a separate society in respect of each building. Respondent No.1 in each of the above appeals is the concerned society of the relevant building. 3. In this matter we are concerned with four buildings namely building Nos.1, 3, 5 and 9 which have an aggregate of 128 flats. There are thus 128 members of the said four buildings including the 12 Appellants in the above appeals. 4. Each of the societies in the above matter had entered into an agreements with Respondent No.3 - M/s.A.A. Estate Private Limited for the redevelopment of the entire building. Clause 5-a entitles each member to a flat on ownership basis in reconstructed building admeasuring 400 sq.ft. carpet area. Clause 5-c clarified that each flat would admeasure 400 sq.ft. carpet area inclusive of 45 sq.ft. niche area. : 4 : . At a meeting held between the society and the developer on 17.10.2006, it was agreed that the revised area would be 345 sq.ft. plus 75 sq.ft. in the form of niche and flowerbeds totalling 420 sq.ft. 5. As stated above the above four Appeals involved four buildings having an aggregate of 128 flats/members. There are twelve Appellants in the above appeals who now refuse to abide by the above agreement. The other hundred and sixteen occupants of these four buildings have already vacated their flats and accepted the temporary alternate accommodation and/or compensation in lieu thereof. They are awaiting the redevelopment of the building in which they will be allotted their respective flats. If the project is stalled for any reason, as a result of the refusal of the twelve members to vacate their flats these one hundred and sixteen occupants who have vacated their flats will suffer irreparable and enormous prejudice. They are out of their homes. 6. Mr.Desai submitted that this should make no difference to the Court and such an order must only be passed at the final hearing. 7. I am unable to agree. In fact no prejudice : 5 : would be caused to the twelve Appellants by the order. As I will now demonstrate even on merits the Appellants have no case whatsoever. In fact the members including the Appellants will be getting a larger area than they are entitled to under the agreement. 8. It was contended that only an area of 320 sq.ft. is now going to be made available instead of an area of 345 sq.ft. plus 75 sq.ft. This is not correct. Each of the members even under the existing sanctioned plan will get a flat admeasuring 320 sq.ft. plus balconies. The area of the balconies must necessarily be included in the area of the flat. On behalf of the Respondents, an affidavit has been filed by the Architect which clearly establishes that the area each of the members will be getting including the area of balcony , is 391 sq.ft. as against the 345 sq.ft. that they are entitled to under the agreement. In addition thereto, the niche area is to be provided. 9. All the above Appeals from Order are accordingly dismissed. . All the above Civil Applications are also dismissed. : 6 : 10. The stay shall continue upto 31st July, 2008.