RAGHUNATH BANDEKAR PAL Vs. PRAGNESH SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present Petition instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has questioned the legality and propriety of the impugned order dtd. 1/7/2024 passed by the Co-operative Court No.4 at Mumbai. By the said order, the Co- operative Court rejected the Contempt Application preferred by the Petitioner against the Respondents. This court by order dated 17. 12. 2025 issued suo motu contempt notice.

(2.) The facts according to petitioner are as under. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are stated to be the office bearers and members of the Managing Committee of Respondent No.6 Co-operative Housing Society. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 are the erstwhile developers of the property in question, while Respondent No.9 has been subsequently appointed by Respondent No.6 Society as the new developer for undertaking redevelopment of the property. The record indicates that the Petitioner had earlier instituted Dispute No. CC/IV/183 of 2009 before the Co-operative Court at Mumbai against Respondent No.6 Society and Respondent No.8, who was then the developer. The said dispute came to be amicably resolved through Consent Terms dtd. 26/11/2010 executed between the parties. The Consent Terms were signed on behalf of Respondent No.6 Society by its Secretary and were also executed by Respondent Nos.7 and 8. Under the said Consent Terms, the Respondents jointly and severally acknowledged that the Petitioner is the bona fide member and owner of premises bearing No. B-03 admeasuring 360 sq. ft. carpet area, situated on the ground floor of the B/C Wing of Amardeep Mahal Building. The said premises were described as having essential amenities including electricity, water and toilet facilities. It was further acknowledged that the Petitioner had been using the said premises for commercial purposes since the year 1984. The Consent Terms further stipulated that upon redevelopment of the building and after issuance of the Occupation Certificate, the Petitioner would be allotted two newly constructed closed premises admeasuring 180 sq. ft. each, aggregating to 360 sq. ft., on the ground floor of the redeveloped building. It was also agreed that the said premises would be provided along with essential amenities such as water supply, electricity and toilet facilities. The parties had also agreed that the Respondents would pay transit rent to the Petitioner in advance for a period of eighteen months and thereafter continue to pay the same until the Occupation Certificate for the redeveloped building was obtained. The transit rent was agreed to be calculated at the rate of 65 per sq. ft. per month.

(3.) In partial compliance with the aforesaid Consent Terms, Respondent No.8, through Respondent No.6 Society, paid an amount of 11,85,600/- towards transit rent for the period commencing from 1/9/2010 until 30/11/2014. However, according to the Petitioner, the Respondents thereafter failed to continue payment of transit rent as agreed. In the meanwhile, Respondent No.6 Society terminated the development agreement executed with Respondent No.8 and subsequently appointed Respondent No.9 as the new developer. Notwithstanding the redevelopment process undertaken thereafter, neither the erstwhile developer nor the newly appointed developer provided the Petitioner with the agreed premises admeasuring 360 sq. ft., nor was the transit rent continued in accordance with the Consent Terms.