- Case
- AMBIT URBANSPACE v. PODDAR APARTMENT CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED (Bombay High Court, 01-04-2025)
- Law
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, Indian Contract Act.
Facts: A developer, Ambit Urbanspace, filed a Section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim protective measures against certain tenants ("Tenants") occupying garages ("Subject Garages") in a building undergoing redevelopment. The developer has a Development Agreement with Poddar Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited ("Society"). The Landlords of the Subject Garages are members of the Society but are distinct from the Society itself. The Tenants are not members of the Society and were not party to the Development Agreement. The developer proposed to provide the tenants with open car parking spaces in lieu of the enclosed garages.
Procedural Posture: This is a Section 9 petition filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, seeking interim measures pending arbitration.
Issue: Can a Section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, be used to seek the eviction of tenants who are not party to the arbitration agreement, based on a Development Agreement between the developer, the society, and the landlords, where the tenants are statutory tenants protected by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999? Can interim measures be granted to displace tenants when the proposed alternative (open car parking) represents a downgrade from their existing tenanted premises (enclosed garages with utilities)?
Holding: No, the Section 9 petition is dismissed. The Court held that it is not a fit case for the invocation of Section 9 seeking interim protective measures. The Developer and Society must ensure the safety and free access to the Subject Garages during redevelopment.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the tenants are not party to the Development Agreement and cannot be bound by it. The tenants are statutory tenants protected by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and their eviction is subject to the provisions of that Act. Granting the reliefs sought would effectively amount to a back-door eviction, as the tenants would be permanently displaced from their existing premises and given an inferior alternative. The court also noted that the landlords had not initiated any proceedings under the Rent Act for alleged unauthorized use of the garages despite knowing about it for decades. The court emphasized that Section 9 jurisdiction is an equitable one and should not be used to circumvent the protections afforded to tenants under the Rent Act. The court also found that there was no real dispute between the parties to the arbitration agreement that needed to be secured. The court distinguished the present case from other cases involving members of a co-operative society, where the members are bound by the collective will of the society.
