After 17 Of 18 Members Vacate And Deadline Passes, Bombay HC Orders Sole Holdout To Hand Over Flat For Redevelopment, Presuming A Strong Case For Interim Eviction.

The Petitioner-Society undertook redevelopment of its building after the requisite society resolutions and executed a registered Development Agreement with a developer.

Seventeen of its eighteen members vacated their flats, but the Respondent, the legal representative of a member associated with Flat No. 3, did not.

The Society sought a mandatory temporary injunction directing her to vacate.

The Co-operative Court rejected that application, and the Co-operative Appellate Court dismissed the Society’s appeal, although it recognised that such interim relief could be granted.

The Society then challenged both orders by writ petition.

The High Court noted that the building was ready for demolition, redevelopment had commenced, and the Respondent had not appeared in the proceedings; the flat was found locked.

Under Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, an interlocutory mandatory injunction ordinarily requires a strong prima facie case—applying a higher standard than that for a prohibitory injunction—likely irreparable or serious injury, and a balance of convenience favouring relief; the court must also consider whether withholding relief risks greater injustice than granting it.

The Court relied on Pranav Constructions v. Priyadarshani CHSL and Lakhani Realty LLP v. Kalina Darshan CHSL for the propositions that members are bound by the society’s redevelopment obligations and that interim directions to vacate may be appropriate to prevent redevelopment from being frustrated.

The judgment further held that, in redevelopment cases involving a dissenting flat occupier, the majority’s redevelopment decision and the resulting risk to the project may establish a strong prima facie case for interim mandatory relief.

The High Court found that the Trial Court had wrongly treated the relief as impermissible merely because it resembled final relief, and had misapplied Dorab Cawasji Warden.

Seventeen members had vacated, the developer had commenced the redevelopment process and was paying transit rent, while the Respondent’s continued occupation could prevent demolition and prejudice the other members.

The Appellate Court accepted that mandatory interim relief was legally available but nevertheless declined to grant it and directed the Society to apply afresh, despite evidence that the date for vacating had passed.

The High Court held that this approach unnecessarily prolonged litigation and failed to protect the redevelopment project.

It allowed the Society’s application at Exhibit 5 and directed the Respondent to hand over Flat No. 3 by 20 November 2026.

If she failed to do so, the Society could take possession with police assistance.

If the Respondent was absent when possession was taken, the Society was directed to inventory any movables and notify her; unclaimed movables could thereafter be dealt with in accordance with law.

No order as to costs was made.