16 The MOU executed by the parties on 24 September 2007 sets out the circumstances in which the MOU was executed. The MOU recites that there was a slum notification issued in respect of the suit property; that Defendant No.1 had decided to entrust the development work of the suit property to the developer on “as is and where is” basis, subject to the prior sanction of the Charity Commissioner and subject to the various terms and conditions recited therein. The MOU further recites that in pursuance of the proposal to the develop the suit property as aforesaid, the Plaintiff had submitted its proposal in writing to the office bearers of Defendant No.1 and that such proposal was negotiated and discussed at length. The MOU recites that the parties noticed that necessary permission as contemplated under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 was required to be obtained from the Charity Commissioner and that without such permission, it was not possible to enter into a binding contract. It is, in these circumstances that the parties entered into the MOU. The MOU contemplates that it would be the sole responsibility of Defendant No.1 to obtain necessary permission under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, whereafter the parties proposed to execute a development agreement and other writings incidental thereto. The MOU provides that till such permission is obtained and development agreement is executed, the MOU was to be treated only as an understanding between the parties; and that the MOU was executed at the request of the Plaintiff so that further work such as survey etc. was started for the project under reference at the earliest. Having regard to these terms of the MOU, the MOU cannot prima facie be treated as a binding and concluded contract between the parties for redevelopment of the suit property. What the parties contemplated was to, first obtain permission of the Charity Commissioner and thereafter execute a development agreement entrusting the work of redevelopment of the suit property to the Plaintiff. The parties treated the MOU as a mere understanding between the parties till that happened, recorded at the request of the Plaintiff, for commencing the preliminary work proposed to be executed for
