The members of the fourth respondent Society decided to redevelop the property Building No.34,Ganesh Kripa Co operative Housing Society Ltd., Kher Nagar, Bandra East Mumbai, by demolishing the existing building through a developer fifth respondent in the year 2003.
Under the said agreement, the developer had agreed to provide each member occupant, a flat with a carpet area of 345 sq.
That led to the developer fifth respondent filing a suit against the appellants for a permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering with the development.
However, subsequently, the appellants herein, who are 18 in number referred to as number companyoperating members of the Society companyprising the original nine plus addition nine members , opposed the development through fifth respondent.
It is stated that, at that stage, 9 out of the 54 members had opposed the development through the fifth respondent.
The writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge, by order dated 4.2.2010.
feet carpet area and 116 sq.
Therefore MHADA passed an order of summary eviction against them under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976.
feet dry area originally agreed, the fifth respondent will companystruct and make available to each of the 54 members of the fourth respondent Society, including the appellants, a flat measuring 525 sq.
The writ appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 12.3.2010.
feet carpet area and 70 sq.
An agreement dated 17.6.2003 was entered between the Society and the developer in that behalf.
feet and a balcony dry area of 70 sq.ft.
That order was challenged by the appellants in Writ Petition Lodging 10/2010.
Except the appellants, the other members of the fourth respondent Society vacated the premises and shifted to transit accommodation provided by the developer or received an agreed sum as rent in lieu of transit accommodation .
The permissible FSI has been increased companysiderably subsequent to the agreement between the fourth respondent Society and the fifth respondent developer.
In the said suit an interim injunction was issued against the appellants.
On 9.1.2004, the first respondent MHADA issued a NOC for redevelopment to MHADA.
The said order is challenged by the appellants in this appeal by special leave.
Leave granted.
Heard.
The appellants did number vacate the premises.
In view of the above and to put an end to the litigation, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior companynsel for the fifth respondent developer on instructions from Mr. Yogesh Gupta, the Executive Director of fifth respondent, who is present in Court, offered that instead of 345 sq.
