JGB BUILDERS LLP Vs. BASANTI S. RAMSINGHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Sec. 9 Petition has been filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration act") seeking a direction against the 1st Respondent to vacate her premises and hand over the same to the Petitioner in order to enable the Petitioner - developer to undertake the task of redevelopment as per the Development Agreement dated 6th May, 2021.

(2.) It is the case of the Petitioner that there are totally 26 members of the 2nd Respondent society. Out of this, 25 members have not only signed the Development Agreement but all of them are ready to vacate their respective premises by 12th December, 2021. It is only the 1st Respondent who has refused to vacate her premises being Flat No. 303 situated on the 3rd floor of the Building called "Rendezvous", Plot No. 120/121 CTS No.473, Perry Road, Bandra (W), Mumba 400050.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st Respondent has fairly stated that the 1st Respondent is not opposing the re-development. He, however, stated that certain terms and conditions of the Development Agreement are extremely harsh on the members of the 2nd Respondent society and are totally lopsided and in favour of the Petitioner-developer. To substantiate this argument, the learned counsel submitted that surprisingly, in the Development Agreement, there is no clause for escalation in the payment of hardship compensation for the entire period of 33 months (the time for completion of the project). The learned counsel submitted that if the 1st Respondent were to take premises on leave and license, that leave and license agreement would necessarily incorporate an escalation clause. Despite this, there is no provision for escalation in the Development Agreement. He, therefore, submitted that at least qua the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner be asked to provide escalation in hardship compensation before the 1st Respondent is asked to vacate her premises. The second contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the 1st Respondent was that the Development Agreement contemplates that to get Alternate Accommodation, the 1st Respondent has to only approach panel of the brokers appointed by the Petitioner-Developer. He submitted that the 1st Respondent be allowed to approach any broker to get suitable alternate accommodation and she should not be tied down to only approach the brokers of the Petitioner-Developer. For all these reasons, the learned counsel submitted that no order ought to be passed asking the 1st Respondent to vacate her Flat No. 303 in the building known as "Rendezvous" until the aforesaid issues are sorted out by the Petitioner-Developer.