The HC directed the plaintiffs to take possession of their respective premises/ flats as per the occupation certificates issued. (File)In an interim relief to eight flat and building owners at Santacruz East, who had entered into a redevelopment agreement with a private developer, the Bombay High Court (HC), in an interim order, restrained the developer from using a portion of the redeveloped premises for commercial use without the owners’ consent, noting that the building was exclusively meant for residential purposes.
A single-judge bench of Justice AK Menon, on December 7, passed the order while hearing an interim application in a suit filed by four flat owners, along with four joint owners of a building at Santacruz East, seeking restraining directions against the developer.
Advocates Aditya Bhatt and Riddhi Shah, representing the plaintiffs, informed the court that the suit was filed for the specific performance of a development agreement (DA) entered into by eight persons with the private developer in 2013.
Bhatt submitted that although the building was ready and the developer was offering possession of the redeveloped flats, they were not willing to take the possession, claiming that the developer had violated a clause of the DA which had prescribed that the redevelopment would be exclusively for residential purposes. However, the developer proposed commercial use of the ground floor for a commercial bank.
The bench directed advocate Rubin Vakil, representing the developer, to file a reply to the plea within four weeks and also asked the plaintiffs to file a rejoinder to the same within four weeks thereafter.
Posting the further hearing after four weeks from the date of the order, the HC directed the plaintiffs to take possession of their respective premises/ flats as per the occupation certificates issued.
The HC noted, “In view of the clause of the Development Agreement of 2013, it is evident that the building was to be exclusively a residential structure. Commercial use is proposed without consent of the plaintiffs and in breach of clause 31. Prima facie, the case is made out for grant of ad-interim relief… Needless to mention, all commercial terms including the payment of consideration for additional area will be honoured by the defendant (private developer).”