the decision of the General Body is in force. As observed earlier, the Appellants have not challenged the decisions of the General Body of the Society which is supreme, in so far as redevelopment of the property in question or of appointment of the Respondent No.1 conferring on him the development rights. The Appellants have merely challenged the Resolution which at best would raise issues regarding the stipulations in the Development Agreement. The General Body of the Society has taken a conscious decision which in this case was after due deliberation of almost over 5 years from August 2002 till the Respondent No. 1 came to be finally appointed as Developer in terms of Resolution dated 2nd March, 2008. Moreover, the General Body of the Society by overwhelming majority not only approved the appointment of Respondent No. 1 as developer but also by subsequent Resolution dated 27th April, 2008 approved the draft Development Agreement. Those terms and conditions have been finally incorporated in the registered Development Agreement executed by the Society in favour of Respondent No.1. That decision and act of the Society would bind the Appellants unless the said Resolutions were to be quashed and set aside by a forum of competent jurisdiction. In other words, in view of the binding effect of the Resolutions on the Appellants, it would necessarily follow that the Appellants were claiming under the Society, assuming that the Appellants have subsisting proprietary rights in relation to the flats in their possession. It is noticed that as of today the Appellants have been expelled from the basic membership of the Society. Their right to occupy the flat is associated with their continuance as member of the Society. It is a different matter that the decision of expelling the Appellants from the basic membership of the Society will be subject to the outcome of the decision of the superior authority where the appeals are stated to be pending. If the decision of the Society to expel the Appellants is to be maintained, in that case, the Appellants would have no surviving cause to pursue their remedy even before the Co-operative Court much less to obstruct the redevelopment proposal. As a matter of fact those proceedings will have to be taken to its logical end expeditiously. Even if the Appellants were to continue as members, they would be bound by the decision of the General Body whether they approve of the same or otherwise. In any case, keeping in mind that the Development Agreement does not absolutely take away the rights of the Appellants in the flats in question, as after demolition of the existing building, the Appellants would be accommodated in the newly constructed flats to be allotted to them in lieu of the existing flats, on the same terms as in the case of other members, provided the Appellants continue to remain members of the Society. Under the Development Agreement, the Respondent No. 1 is obliged to complete the project within 18 months from the date of receipt of full Commencement Certificate from the Corporation. The full Commencement Certificate would be issued only upon the vacant possession of the entire building is delivered to the Respondent No.1 who in turn would demolish the same with a view to reconstruct a new building in its place. Significantly, out of twelve (12) members, ten (10) members have already acted upon the Development Agreement as well as have executed separate undertaking-cum-agreement with the Respondent No. 1 Developer. They have already vacated flats in their occupation to facilitate demolition of the existing building and have shifted to alternative transit accommodation as back as in February 2009. The project has been stalled because of the obstruction created by the Appellants herein who are in minuscule minority. The said ten members of the Society
