One or few members cannot hold up building redevelopment

They can go to court, but generally if majority is in favour of redevelopment, the court agrees to it

Recently film actor Aamir Khan was in the news when a building in which he owns three flats opposed his proposal to redevelop the building. According to newspaper reports, five of the 23 members of the co-operative housing society are opposed to his proposal. Khan, meanwhile, has said that he has only made a proposal and is not trying to evict residents from the building.

Similarly, a building which was declared unsafe, collapsed earlier this month, killing seven people. Newspaper reports said that one of the tenants had refused to vacate the building and had gone to court against the redevelopment of the building.

In cases of society redevelopment, the law states that one or few members cannot hold up the redevelopment, says lawyer Anil Harish.

The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act says that if there is a redevelopment proposal, it should be passed through the proper procedure in the society’s general body meeting. And at least 75% of the members should agree to the proposal. Otherwise the building cannot go ahead with the proposal.

In case of Khan’s society, 80% of the members have agreed to his proposal.

The only option for such minority members is to take the legal route. They take the stance that it is their property and they too have a say in the redevelopment. But when such cases reach the court, in most instances, the Court says that they cannot stop the redevelopment of the entire society, says Harish.

The reasons for objection could be varied, such as the builder working in cahoots with a few members and promising them larger flats in the new building, or that the builder is giving smaller flats to original residents as compared to new flats which are to be sold at market rates or not adequate rent to the original members.

If the reasons for objection are valid, the Court may ask the society to restart the bidding process for redevelopment, Harish adds. “Objection by a few members is one of the reasons why redevelopment gets held or stalled. But generally when the majority of the members are in favour of the redevelopment proposal, the Court allows them to go ahead with the project,’’ he says.

In November 2013, the Bombay High Court had rejected a plea filed by 45 members who were objecting to the redevelopment of a society. The Court held that out of 224 members, 179 had given consent and hence the minority members were bound by the agreement executed between society and developer. The opposing 45 members had approached the Court in 2009 and filed a plea against the redevelopment.