Withdrawal of consent may be used to blackmail developers: HC

In 2003,the members of the society had decided to redevelop its property during which time 45 out of 54 members including 10 of the petitioners gave their consent in support of the redevelopment project taking the percentage of consent to 83.

The required permissions were sought from different authorities and in 2007,34 members of the society vacated their tenements and shifted to the temporary alternative accommodation. However,the petitioners who had started opposing the project since 2004 refused to vacate their tenements.

The developers,A A Estate Private Limited,moved the court and after several proceedings and show cause notices later in December 2009,the executive engineer ordered the petitioners to vacate the premises.

Advocate appearing for the petitioners challenged the order on two grounds that Housing Board did not have jurisdiction to pass such an order and also pointed out that the redevelopment scheme is not supported by 70 percent of the members of the society.

MHADA counsel G W Mattos submitted that the redevelopment was undertaken under DCR 33(5) upon NOC from MHADA and as per the provisions they are empowered to invoke the provisions of summary eviction.

The court accepted the submission made by Mattos and held that the housing board had power to evict the tenants. As for the consent terms the court pointed out that 83 percent of the members had granted their consent. The petitioners who have withdrawn their consent have not challenged the resolution for redevelopment passed by the society or the agreement with the developer in any court,the judge observed.

The court while dismissing the petition has stayed the order for two weeks to give time to petitioners to vacate their premises upon undertaking that they will not create any third party interests.