Bombay HC Bars Coercive Eviction And Penalty Until Society Member’s Alternate-Accommodation Agreement Is Registered, Leaves His 2,000-Sq-Ft Claim Open

The Petitioner claimed rights in the entire ground-floor premises of Om Sadan CHS, which he asserted constituted one commercial unit measuring 2,000 sq. ft.

His claim relied on historic transfer and lease documents, Society records, municipal records, and his entry as a member in the Society’s records on 4 April 2026 pursuant to orders of the Deputy Registrar.

The Society and Developer disputed the premises’ area and character, relying, among other things, on the sanctioned plan and the 1967 Indenture, and the redevelopment documents described the premises differently.

The Developer had called upon the Petitioner to hand over possession, but no PAAA had been executed and registered in his favour.

The Petitioner therefore sought interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including protection against coercive steps and penalties pending resolution of the dispute.

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the Court to grant appropriate interim measures to preserve rights pending arbitration, but does not enable it to finally determine disputed membership, title, area, or redevelopment entitlement.

Under Section 9(2), where arbitral proceedings have not commenced, they must be commenced within the prescribed period, subject to any time permitted by the Court.

In Pranav Constructions Limited v. Priyadarshini Cooperative Housing Society Limited, 2025:BHC-OS:10901-DB, the Court held that individual disputes concerning redevelopment benefits generally require determination under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 or in a civil suit, but that this does not prevent interim protection under Section 9 where its requirements are met.

Clause 20(d) of the Development Agreement made execution and registration of the PAAA a condition precedent to a member vacating.

The Court also noted the principle in Rajesh Mishra v. Shree Ahuja Properties Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 2945, that commercial municipal assessment or use does not, by itself, establish approval for a change of use contrary to the sanctioned plan.

The Petitioner’s membership entry and supporting documents gave him a sufficient basis to seek limited protection, notwithstanding that he had not signed the Development Agreement; the Court rejected non-signature as an absolute bar, without deciding that every claim fell within the arbitration clause.

The historic transfers, Society records, bank lease and municipal records supported his claim that the ground floor had been treated as one unit, but did not conclusively establish that it was an approved commercial premises of exactly 2,000 sq. ft.; the competing sanctioned-plan and Indenture evidence required determination in appropriate proceedings.

The Court found that Clause 20(d) required the PAAA to be executed and registered before the Petitioner vacated.

As the Respondents had not established that a PAAA containing the necessary details had been provided and refused, they could not compel him to vacate or penalise him for failing to do so before that condition was fulfilled.

The Court balanced this protection against the need not to obstruct redevelopment by permitting the project to continue while preserving the Petitioner’s disputed claim.

The Respondents were directed to provide the relevant sanctioned redevelopment plans and documents, furnish a draft PAAA in the Petitioner’s name recording his membership and the disputed nature of the premises, and take steps to execute and register the PAAA.

Until then, they could not take coercive steps to compel him to vacate or impose or recover a penalty on that basis.

They were also directed to continue undisputed contractual benefits and to identify and protect the proposed alternative accommodation from allotment to a third party in a manner defeating the Petitioner’s rights.

The Court did not declare that the Petitioner was entitled to 2,000 sq. ft. of commercial accommodation or to accommodation on a particular floor; those issues were left open for appropriate proceedings.

Redevelopment was not stayed, and the Petitioner was required to commence arbitral proceedings within the period under Section 9(2), subject to any time permitted by the Court.

If the Respondents complied with the directions to provide the plans and draft PAAA but the Petitioner failed to execute it, the Court Receiver would stand appointed to execute the PAAA on his behalf.