Summary
Tenants of premises under redevelopment in Mumbai challenged Bombay High Court orders concerning a development agreement in favour of a developer; during the pendency of the special leave petitions the present management and MHADA terminated that developer's agreement and appointed another developer. The Supreme Court permitted the tenants in one petition to withdraw it unconditionally in view of the changed circumstances, dismissed it as against a petitioner who did not appear, and disposed of the companion petition by directing the present management to furnish the fresh development agreement to the tenants, leaving them free to challenge its terms before the appropriate forum, and leaving the former developer free to challenge the termination and the new agreement, with the grounds in its perjury applications to be considered there on merits.
Issues
- Whether the tenants' challenge to the earlier development agreement survived after its termination and the appointment of a new developer, and what liberties should be reserved to the tenants and the displaced developer.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaTaking note of the subsequent developments recorded in IA No. 128881 of 2019, the Court permitted withdrawal of one petition and disposed of the other with liberties, without prejudice to the parties' rights and contentions in proceedings to be initiated before the appropriate forum. (¶¶ 3.1, 4, 5, 6)
Held
- The cause against the former developer did not survive once its development agreement was terminated on 08.10.2018 and a fresh agreement executed with another developer; the tenants were entitled to a copy of the fresh agreement and to challenge its terms if aggrieved, and the former developer, whose application challenging the termination and perjury applications were not entertained in these proceedings, was left to pursue those grievances before the appropriate court or forum. (¶¶ 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4, 5)
Result
SLP (C) No. 4428 of 2016 dismissed as withdrawn, and dismissed as against petitioner No. 4 for non-appearance; SLP (C) CC No. 4922 of 2016 disposed of with delay condoned and legal heirs substituted, directing that the fresh development agreement be furnished to the tenants, with liberty to them to challenge its terms and to respondent No. 5 to challenge the termination of its agreement and the fresh agreement before the appropriate forum, where the grounds in the perjury applications may be considered on merits; pending applications disposed of.