Disposed

Satidevi Co-Operative Housing Society v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC5 Apr 2024WP/3605/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, parties consented to terms regarding the rehabilitation scheme, rent arrears, and construction completion. All allegations against the respondent were withdrawn, breaches settled, and the petitioner undertook cooperation, effectively disposing of the matter via mutual settlement.

What did the court decide?

Matter disposed of via consent terms accepting settlement of rent disputes, withdrawal of allegations, and undertaking of cooperation for SRA project completion.

Satidevi Co-Operative Housing Society Vs State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3SOF 2018 Dist.: — Mumbai 4J.TIDEVI CO-OPERATIVE ) HOUSING SOCIETY(Proposed) ) Registered on 2 1/02/2023 subsequently) Having Office at Plot bearing City ) SurveyNo 814,815,816,816 ‘/2 ) Dr R.P.Road,Near Sanghvi Chawl ) Mulund,Taluka Kurla,Murnbai 400080) .Petitioner V/s 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ) 2.SHREENATH DEVELOPERS ) Having office at Dattaram Arcade ) Shop NO %,Plot No I 36/D ,Sector 19 ) Khargar,Navi Mumbai

¶2

¶3

3. JANAK NATWARLAL SANCHVI PartnerofShreenath Developers Having address at 702,Shrisli Regency
Near Lohana Mahajanwadi,Kharkar alli
Thane	)	a -
4.Dy DISTRICT COLLECTOR
(Encroachment Removal &Competent
Authority .Mulund Topiwala College	)
Building,Sarojini Naidu Road.Mulund	)
Muirthai 400080	)
5 . SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHOR	ITY)
SRA Having its Corporate Office at	)
Administrative Building,Anant Kanekar
Marg,Bandra (W),Mumbai 4000 050
6.MANOJ WALAVALKAR (Architect)
An Adult Indian Inhabitant ofMumbai
Residing at C-I 7,Shanti Carnpus,Pandit
Malviya Road,Mulund,Mumbai 400080	)
7.M/s AHILYA ENTERPRISES
Through its Proprietor Sudhir Tatkare
Retired Partner ofShreenath Developers	)
Having Office at 212,2m1 Floor, annexed B	ldg)

¶4

¶5

Sector 1-A CBD Belapur,Navi Mumbai 400614)

¶6

.Respondents

¶7

CONSENT TERMS

¶8

The Petitioners filed the present writ petiti^onagainst the

¶9

Respondents for direction of issuance of writ for reconstruction of the tenement and/or completion of SRA project.

¶10

Development Agreement dated 29/04/2010 and

¶11

1. Respondent no 2, Shreenath Developers entered into a

¶12

Supplementary Development Agreement dated

¶13

28/07/201 Iwith the original land owners of land bearing

¶14

CTS Nos 814,814/1 to 15, 815/1 to 3. They agreed to

¶15

develop the said property under SRA Scheme.

¶16

promoter (Kishor Waman Vaity),along with the then Committee Members and retired partners of Shreenath 3. The Petitioner society was formed and the Chief

¶17

Developers in connivance with each other appointed

¶18

Shri.Manoj Walavalkar, Respondent no 6 as an Architect for the SRA scheme who prepared fraudulent papers of

¶19

SRA Scheme. An FIR no: 414/2015 was regisiered against

¶20

£1

¶21

him, under section IPC 420, 465,467 and 468 with

¶22

Mulund police station.

¶23

certificate (CC) was issued by SRA and the SRA scheme was dated: 09/03/20 16 vide no: SRA/ENG/2842/T/PL/LOI was issued initiated. was appointed by the Petitioners and thereafter commencement and new an architect Mr.Ketan Musale of M/s DOT Architects 4. Thereafter Respondent no 2 obtained a Letter of Intent (LOl)

¶24

,Respondent no 6 and Chief Promoter were responsible for the problem suffered by the Petitioners and therefore they have filed demolished. this Writ Petition for reconstruction of the tenement which were 5. The retired partners Respondent no 3and 7 along with the Architect

¶25

between Petitioners and Respondent No 2 and cancel the

¶26

1. In the year 2019 it was decided that new agreement shall be made

¶27

agreements made in the year 2010 and 2014 respectively .However the scheme got delayed

¶28

¶29

March,2023( wherein Paresh N.Patel is admitted as New Partner dispute with the Petitioners. The present partners of Respondent begun the construction of the SRA building and have agreed to pay No2 have agreed to accept the demands of the Petitioners and have the arrears of rent and till date have paid the arrears as agreed. and Modaram P.Chaudhaiy is continuing Partner) settled the 7. The Petitioner and Respondent No 2 after the reconstitution of their finTi by Deed Of Relirement Cum Admission dated 27th

¶30

outstanding rent for the period of 35 months tenement and RsJ execution of this months each and document. were agreed to be paid to at the rate of 10,000 pm for residential 3,000 pm for the commercial premises.Thereafier for the commercial premises. The outstanding rent shall be paid the rate of 13,000 pm for residential tenement the first instalment shall be paid after 6 months of and Rsl6,000 pm in three equal instalments paid in an interval of 6 it shall be paid at 8. The arrears of the

¶31

The Petitioner and Respondent no 2 have agreed that the allotment

¶32

of the shops and flats shall be given as per the SRA rules and nonns.

¶33

Respondent no 2 has commenced the constructions and shall

¶34

complete the Rehab building within the agreed period.

¶35

II .The Rehabilitation Building to be constructed by Respondent no 2 as per the plans, which may be sanctioned by the Slum

¶36

Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and! or other concerned authorities as per the prevailing Rules, Regulations and Law.

¶37

12.The Petitioners agree and undertake not to create any hindrance,

¶38

nuisance, or problem to the Respondeni no 2 in getting the

¶39

construction work completed as per the sanctioned Plan.

¶40

affidavits, forms, writing as may be required by Respondent No 2

¶41

13.The Petitioners agree to sign all papers, letters, plans, undertaking, for obtaining any other permission and sanction from Slum

¶42

Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). the Municipal Corporation of

¶43

Greater Mumbai and or other requisite authorities for the purpose

¶44

of development of the said property.

¶45

¶46

l4.The Petitioners have withdrawn all the allegations,complaints

¶47

,representation in any form filed or pending before the SRA

¶48

authorities against Respondent no 2 only.

¶49

15.The Petitioners have withdrawn all the allegations,cornplaints

¶50

,representation in any form filed or pending before Mulund Police

¶51

Station and all the other higher police authorities against

¶52

Respondent no 2.

¶53

I 6.The Petitioners throughout the implementation of S.R.A Scheme

¶54

shall cooperate with Respondent no 2 at all or any stage.

¶55

The Declarations, Agreements, writings executed by the

¶56

Petitioners in favour of Respondent no 2 shall be binding on them

¶57

in more particularly executed in the year 2019.

¶58

l8.The Petitioners admit and acknowledge the reconstitution of

¶59

Respondent no 2 dated²⁷¹¹¹ March,2023.

¶60

19.The Petitioners shall be responsible for the eligibility of the

¶61

members who are not eligible.

¶62

20.The Respondent admit and acknowledge the reconstitution of

¶63

Petitioners dated 01/01/2023 and 2 1/04/2023

¶64

Dated^oS_03-2024

¶65

Mumbai

¶66

&1T I1 rRL3tR.U. Z UjoWñW tR UJLMI3WLP./UZUR14 / (A)fS3X?9/z91 ?o? il Ps.: U3 a Petitioner

¶67

Respondent

¶68

raenHot mt

¶69

For SHR9IATH^DEVELOPERS PARThER inw’q

¶70

5 MAR^ZOZ

¶71

E Dr.v’ m. kefl-40Q .

Satidevi Co-Operative Housing Society v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satidevi Co-Operative Housing Society v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Vaishali Natwarlal Shah and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Vithal Rakhumai Chs (Proposed) and 7 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Vaishali Shah Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Shamim Hyder Abdul Hafiz and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Saifuddin Adamali Arsiwala Vs State of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department, through Government Pleader

Hirabai Petha Dodia Vs State of Maharashtra Urban Development Department through Government Pleader