Observing that the withdrawal of consent by tenants for redevelopment of buildings is inconsequential,the Bombay High Court said that if such withdrawal of consents is allowed it will encourage some of the members of societies to use it as a weapon to blackmail the developers. The court also said that object of redevelopment of old and dilapidated buildings will never be achieved with withdrawal of consents. Justice S J Kathawala made these observations while dismissing a petition filed by 19 members of Kher Nagar Ganeshkrupa Cooperative Housing Society in Bandra East,who had challenged an order passed by Executive Engineer of Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board,giving 48 hours to the petitioner tenants to leave the tenements,failing which they would be evicted under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act. The petition has been moved by 19 out of 54 members of the housing society holding. 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 The petitioners who have withdrawn their consent have not challenged the resolution for redevelopment passed by the society or the agreement with the developer in any court,the judge observed.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.
