 "A few members can't stall redevelopment")
Any proposal for building redevelopment is often met with opposition from a few owners, and with good reason. In the past, a few builders have delayed the redevelopment, leaving owners stuck.
Therefore, it isn’t surprising when actor Aamir Khan proposed to redevelop the building in which he owned three flats, five of the 23 members of the society opposed the move. The fact that Khan said he wasn’t trying to evict residents failed to convince many.
Lawyer Anil Harish says in such cases, one or a few members cannot hold up the process. The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, says a redevelopment proposal should follow a set procedure—-it should be passed in the society’s general body meeting. At least 75 per cent of the members should agree to the proposal; else, it cannot be furthered.
The reasons for objections to redevelopment could be various: The builder could be in cahoots with a few members, promising them larger flats in the new building. Or, smaller flats might be offered to the original residents, while new flats would be sold at market rates. Or original members might not get adequate rentals.
If the reasons for an objection are valid, the court might ask the society to start the bidding process for redevelopment afresh. Harish says: “Objection by a few members is one of the reasons why redevelopment is held or stalled. But generally, when most of the members are in favour of the proposal, the court allows them to go ahead with it.”
Often, cases filed by members stall the work for years. In 2009, opposing the redevelopment of a society, 45 of its members had approached the Bombay High Court and filed a plea in this regard. In November 2013, the court had rejected the plea, saying out of the 224 members, 179 had given their consent and, therefore, the minority members were bound by the agreement executed between the society and the developer.
In a few instances, the court has said the minority opposing a society’s decision should be evicted in case it refuses to vacate on its own.
Earlier this month, a building in Mumbai’s Santa Cruz here collapsed, killing seven people. Reports suggested though the building was declared unsafe, tenants had refused to vacate it, even moving court against its redevelopment.
Therefore, it isn’t surprising when actor Aamir Khan proposed to redevelop the building in which he owned three flats, five of the 23 members of the society opposed the move. The fact that Khan said he wasn’t trying to evict residents failed to convince many.
Lawyer Anil Harish says in such cases, one or a few members cannot hold up the process. The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, says a redevelopment proposal should follow a set procedure—-it should be passed in the society’s general body meeting. At least 75 per cent of the members should agree to the proposal; else, it cannot be furthered.
Also Read
The only option for minority members is to take the legal route. As they are stakeholders, they should have a say in the proceedings. However, in most such instances, the court says the redevelopment of the society cannot be stopped.
The reasons for objections to redevelopment could be various: The builder could be in cahoots with a few members, promising them larger flats in the new building. Or, smaller flats might be offered to the original residents, while new flats would be sold at market rates. Or original members might not get adequate rentals.
If the reasons for an objection are valid, the court might ask the society to start the bidding process for redevelopment afresh. Harish says: “Objection by a few members is one of the reasons why redevelopment is held or stalled. But generally, when most of the members are in favour of the proposal, the court allows them to go ahead with it.”
Often, cases filed by members stall the work for years. In 2009, opposing the redevelopment of a society, 45 of its members had approached the Bombay High Court and filed a plea in this regard. In November 2013, the court had rejected the plea, saying out of the 224 members, 179 had given their consent and, therefore, the minority members were bound by the agreement executed between the society and the developer.
In a few instances, the court has said the minority opposing a society’s decision should be evicted in case it refuses to vacate on its own.
Earlier this month, a building in Mumbai’s Santa Cruz here collapsed, killing seven people. Reports suggested though the building was declared unsafe, tenants had refused to vacate it, even moving court against its redevelopment.