Mumbai, Sept. 8 -- Members of a housing society cannot stall redevelopment by refusing to hand over possession of their properties due to disputes over issues such as floor allocation, market value, and their new flats facing a certain direction, when the development agreement contains provisions requiring vacation, the Bombay High Court has ruled. A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar made the observation last week while asking six property owners in a 52-year-old building in Malad, whose disputes were holding up its redevelopment that was finalised in 2024, to vacate and hand over possession of their homes and shops to the developer. The court said that the owners cannot insist upon conditions that are not in the development agreement to vacate. The owners "have not shown sufficient reason for continuing to withhold possession merely because there are disputes regarding the floor, facing, market value, area, PAAA (Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement) terms or commencement of rent. Such disputes may be taken before the competent forum. They cannot be used as a means to stop the redevelopment," it added. The bench also noted that the building in question was declared unsafe, making its demolition urgent. It said that if redevelopment is stopped because a few members continue to retain possession, "the society and the developer will continue to suffer delay". The court was hearing a petition filed by Ambit Estates, the developer appointed to redevelop the Malad Yojana Co-operative Housing Society (MYCHS) in Malad West. The building, constructed in 1974, comprised 47 units-31 residential and 16 commercial. Ambit Estates told the court that six society members-two shop owners and four flat owners-were obstructing the redevelopment project, for which the agreement was executed in April 2024. According to the agreement, residential members were to receive an additional 25% area in their redeveloped flats, with no conditions specified regarding which floor they would be on or which direction they would face. Society members with shops facing S V Road or the station road were to receive an additional 20% area, while members with shops at the back of the ground floor were to receive an additional 25% area. Their shops in the new building would be located either on the first floor or on any floor facing Kasturba Road, to be mutually decided. In July this year, Ambit Estates executed the PAAAs, after which notices were issued to the owners to vacate. However, everyone except the six members handed over possession of their premises, the petition said. The six owners made various demands like their premises in the redeveloped building be on the same floor they currently occupy, face SV Road, that the displacement rent begin on the day they vacate, and that the agreement include "rider clauses" of their choice, the petition added. Ambit Estates informed the court that it had already spent over Rs.14 crore on the redevelopment project as of August. It also pointed out that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had notified the building as C-1 (dilapidated and unsafe) in July. The six society members gave the court various reasons for refusing to hand over their premises, including a reduction in market value resulting from the allocation of a new flat on a different floor in the new building. However, the bench said that while some of their concerns may be genuine, they need to be redressed in the appropriate forum and not in the petition before the high court. "When the redevelopment is accepted by them (six property owners), they cannot prevent the redevelopment from proceeding by retaining possession of the old flats merely because they are not satisfied with the proposed floor or facing of the new premises," the court said. Regarding one of the flat owners insisting on rider clauses, the judge said that "these objections do not give him an unlimited right to retain possession of the existing building and delay the redevelopment."...