- Case
- HARESH V. KAGRANA HUF THR. ITS KARTA MR. HARESH V. KAGRANA AND OTHERS v. THE NEW MILAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS (Bombay High Court, 06-01-2025)
- Law
- Code of Civil Procedure, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
Facts: Appellants, residents of a cooperative housing society undergoing redevelopment, filed a suit seeking a mandatory injunction to compel the society and developer to disclose the basis for calculating flat areas. They contested that their ground floor flats with "Otlas" and 3rd-floor flats with attached terraces were not being adequately considered in the redevelopment plan, unlike balconies in other flats. The sanctioned plan showed these areas as exclusive to the respective flats.
Procedural Posture: The Appellants initially filed a Notice of Motion seeking an interim injunction to restrain the Respondents from proceeding with redevelopment without disclosing the basis of area calculations. The City Civil Court dismissed the motion. This appeal arises from that order.
Issue: Should the areas of "Otlas" and attached terraces, shown in the sanctioned plan as exclusive to certain flats in a cooperative housing society undergoing redevelopment, be considered as part of the flat owners' entitlement, similar to how balconies are considered for other flats?
Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the "Otlas" and attached terraces should be considered as part of the flat owners' entitlement. The impugned order of the City Civil Court was quashed and set aside. The Respondent Society and Developer were restrained from proceeding with the redevelopment without considering these areas for flat nos. 1 to 4 and 13 and 14.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the "Otlas" and attached terraces were shown in the sanctioned plan as exclusive to the respective flats and were not common areas. The Court noted that similar areas, in the form of balconies, were being considered for flats on the 1st and 2nd floors. The Court found no justification for differential treatment and held that failing to consider these areas would cause irreparable loss to the Appellants. The Court observed that a strong prima facie case existed in favor of the Appellants and that the balance of convenience also tilted in their favor.
