Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP(C) NO. 4428 OF 2016
S.M. Pasha & Ors. ...Petitioner(S)
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondent(S)
With
SLP(C) NO... CC No. 4922 OF 2016
O R D E R
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6142/2014 and
Writ Petition No. 5490/2014, the present Special Leave
Petitions (SLP) have been preferred by some of the tenants
in occupation of the premises in question.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.02.17
17:06:46 IST
Reason:
1
2. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on
behalf of the petitioners in Special Leave Petition (C) No.
4428/2016 except petitioner No. 4. Shri Rana Mukherjee,
learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the
petitioners in Special Leave Petition (C) No…CC No.
4922/2016. Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate
has appeared on behalf of the present office bearers. Shri
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate has appeared
on behalf of respondent No. 5 in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016 –
main contesting respondent. Shri Venugopal, learned
Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.
17, Shri Gurukrishna Kumar, learned Senior Advocate has
appeared on behalf of respondent No. 16 and Shri Sanjay
Jain, learned ASG has appeared on behalf of the State of
Maharashtra/MHADA.
3. Two IAs are filed for perjury on behalf of respondent No. 5.
One IA is filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 challenging
the termination of the development agreement which was
in its favour.
2
3.1 Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on
behalf of the petitioners in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016 has
prayed to permit the petitioners (except petitioner No. 4) to
withdraw the SLP in view of the subsequent development.
It is submitted that the subsequent developments are
mentioned in IA No. 128881/2019. It is pointed out that
during the pendency of the present proceedings, the
development agreement in favour of respondent No. 5 has
been terminated on 08.10.2018. It is pointed out that the
new development agreement in favour of another developer
has also been entered into as the new developer has been
appointed. It is further pointed out that even subsequently
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
(MHADA) has also terminated the development agreement
which was in favour of respondent No. 5. It is submitted
that in view of the change circumstances, as such, the
cause does not survive which as such was against
respondent No. 5 and therefore, it is prayed to permit the
petitioners to withdraw Special Leave Petition (C) No.
4428/2016.
3
3.2 Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of the petitioners in SLP (C) No…CC No.
4922/2016 is not disputing the above. However, he has
submitted that so far as the tenants and/or the petitioners
in this SLP are concerned, they are not aware of the
contents and/or terms and conditions of the new
development agreement. It is submitted that therefore, the
present management may be directed to furnish the copy
of the fresh development agreement which has been
entered into in favour of new developer so that they can
know on what terms and conditions the fresh development
agreement has been entered into and whether the tenants
are agreeable on the same or not. He has prayed to reserve
the liberty in favour of the petitioners to challenge the
fresh development agreement before appropriate
court/forum, if the petitioners are not agreeable on the
terms and conditions on which the fresh development
agreement has been entered into.
3.3 Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5, though has
4
opposed the withdrawal of the present SLPs, but has
submitted that even respondent No. 5 has challenged the
termination of the development agreement in its favour by
way of IA and has also initiated the perjury proceedings. It
is prayed that if this Court is not inclined to permit
respondent No. 5 to challenge the termination of
respondent No. 5 in the present proceedings and is not
entertaining the perjury application(s), the liberty may be
reserved in favour of respondent No. 5 to challenge the
termination and subsequent development agreement in
favour of another developer before appropriate
court/forum and the grounds stated in the perjury
application(s) may be directed to be considered in
accordance with law and on its own merits.
4. Having heard learned senior counsel/counsel appearing on
behalf of the respective parties and taking into
consideration the subsequent development so stated and
pointed out in IA No. 128881/2019, without prejudice to
the rights and contentions of the respective parties in the
proceedings to be initiated as observed hereinbelow,
5
considering the prayer made by Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned
Senior Advocate, we permit the petitioners in SLP (C) No.
4428/2016 to withdraw the SLP unconditionally. So far as
petitioner No. 4 is concerned none has appeared. In view of
the subsequent development and even otherwise none has
remained present, the present SLP stands dismissed qua
petitioner No. 4 in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016.
SLP (C)…..CC No. 4922/2016
Delay condoned. Substitution application(s) are allowed
and the name(s) of legal heirs of concerned petitioners are
taken on record and the memo of parties be amended
accordingly.
5. SLP (C) No…. CC No. 4922/2016 is disposed of as under:
(i) This Court has taken note of the termination of the
development agreement which was in favour of
respondent No. 5 and executing/entering into the
fresh development agreement. The copy of the fresh
development agreement needs be furnished to the
6
respective tenants by the present management. If any
of the tenants is aggrieved by the terms and
conditions of the fresh development agreement, it will
be open for them to challenge the same before
appropriate court/forum, which may be considered in
accordance with law and on its own merits;
(ii) It will also be open for respondent No. 5 whose
development agreement has been terminated by the
present management/MHADA to challenge the
termination of the development agreement and
executing the fresh development agreement before
appropriate court/forum and the grounds set out in
the perjury application(s) may be considered in
accordance with law and on its own merits.
6. Present Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4428 of 2016 stands
dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the above and with the
above observations and Special Leave Petition (C) No… CC
No. 4922/2016 also stands disposed of in terms of the
above and with the above observations.
7.
7
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
…………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
NEW DELHI,
FEBRUARY 17, 2023.
8