construction potential was only with regard to 663.37 sq.meters, the appellant entered into a supplemental agreement dated 15th May, 2009 and undertake construction and provide tenements to the members of the respondent of the same area as agreed in the development agreement. The respondents had also not created any hurdles and/or prevented the appellant from taking up the issue with the MHADA authorities in construction of the building and undertake redevelopment. It appears that on economic considerations the appellant did not undertake construction well in time as the project appeared to the appellant had become economically unviable. Despite this position, the appellant had undertaken demolition of the building and made the members of the respondent roofless. The members of the respondent could not have waited endlessly to have provided alternate premises in the redeveloped premises. In the circumstances, the argument as urged on behalf of the appellant that the plot area was less and therefore, the construction could not be undertaken, is totally without any basis. It has also no basis on evidence. The findings of the learned Arbitrator in this regard, therefore, cannot be faulted.
