1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5073 OF 2009 Rashmi Vijay Patrawde & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Chembur Crustal CHS Ltd.& Ors. .. Respondents Mr. A. V. Anturkar Senior Counsel a/w Mr. S. B. Deshmukh i/b Mr. Omar Khaiyam Shaikh for the Petitioner. Mr. Atul G. Damle for Respondent No.1 Mr. Ketan A. Chotani for Respondent No.2. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 4th February, 2010. P.C. 1. The petitioners own 5 out of 34 flats in respondent No.1 society. The building is dilapidated. The general body of the society has passed resolutions from time to time beginning from November, 2003 for repairs and reconstruction of the society building. The MHADA has issued No Objection Certificate for repair/ reconstruction-demolition of the building since 26.08.2005. The No Objection Certificate containing the specified terms 2 is dated 24.09.2007. The society has resolved to get the building repaired/reconstructed and in fact redeveloped by respondent No.2. 2. Some of the flat owners opposed the redevelopment. Hence, the dispute came to be filed by the society as well as by those flat owners. Whereas the society prayed for eviction of the flat owners from their respective premises to start and complete the redevelopment, the flat owners and the members of the society who opposed the redevelopment filed their dispute to protect their possession and to protect themselves from the eviction. 3. Since the building which is dilapidated is not a tenanted premises of MHADA but a registered co-operative society, the society could not move for eviction following the procedure established by law under Section 95(a) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (the Act). 4. It appears that an administrator has been appointed in respect of society since 05.01.2008. A stay in 3 respect of his appointment was obtained by society since 21.01.2008. The stay was ultimately granted on 05.06.2008 until further orders. The administrator has not taken charge. However, due to oversight between 18.02.2008 and 05.06.2008 the stay was not extended. On 05.06.2008 stay to the appointment of the Administrator came to be extended upon application of both the parties before the Divisional Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the society has no locus to file the dispute when the administrator was appointed. The fact remains that actually since his appointment was initially stayed, it has not been effected at all in the interregnum also. 6. The resolution to develop has been passed at the general meeting which is the supreme authority of the society under Section 72 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (the Act) and which is required to function democratically as per its resolutions. The resolution passed by the society is binding upon all the members including 4 the petitioners. 7. The petitioners therefore have little cause of complaint. Being members of the society they are bound to follow the dictates of the majority members. 8. The No Objection Certificate of the society granted on 24.09.2007 is in respect of the total built up area permitted to be constructed for the 32 existing residential tenants. It allows no additional FSI to be utilized. Within that FSI the petitioners’ construction would be completed. Further FSI if any would be required to be obtained by respondent No.2 who has to develop the property under the procedure established by the law. 9. Mr. Anturkar argued that under Clause 33(5)(7) of the Development Control Rules, 1991 in any redevelopment scheme where a society has obtained No Objection Certificate of MHADA sanctioning additional balance FSI by consent of 70% members of the society and where the No Objection Certificate has made provision for 5 alternate accommodation, it would be obligatory for all the members to vacate their existing premises for redevelopment only after additional FSI is obtained. A reading of provision does not show that the sanction of the additional FSI is a condition precedent for the vacating the premises. It is for the members to allow redevelopment and to be allotted redeveloped premises or the new premises under No Objection Certificate granted by MHADA. It is for the developer to obtain additional FSI if required. That additional FSI would enure for the benefit only of the developer or the NOC holder. Hence, it is futile for the members of the society or the flat owners to contend they are not required to vacate if the developer has not brought for himself additional FSI for his own benefit. The interpretation requiring additional benefits for the builder to require the members to vacate is absurd. 10. The impugned judgment of the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal allows the development to proceed as per the resolution of the society reflecting the wishes of a majority of its members. It is not for the Court to interfere 6 with such development. The impugned order is therefore correct. No interference is called for. Writ petition is dismissed. (R. S. DALVI, J.)