Supreme Court of India
S. M. PASHA & ORS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. on 17 February 2023
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 383
S. M. PASHA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(SLP(C) No. 4428 of 2016)
FEBRUARY 17, 2023
[M. R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR ANDSANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art. 136 – Special Leave Petition bythe tenants in occupation of the premises – Respondent no. 5 filedtwo IAs for perjury and one IA challenging the termination of thedevelopment agreement – During the pendency of the proceedings,the development agreement in favour of respondent No. 5 wasterminated by Maharashtra Housing and Area DevelopmentAuthority – New development agreement in favour of anotherdeveloper has been entered into as the new developer has beenappointed – Petitioner’s case that in view of the changedcircumstances the cause of action did not survive which as suchwas against respondent No. 5 , and thus, the SLP be permitted to bewithdrawn – Held: Copy of the fresh development agreement needsbe furnished to the respective tenants by the present management –If any of the tenants is aggrieved by the terms and conditions of thefresh development agreement, it would be open for them to challengethe same before appropriate court/forum – Further, it would alsobe open for respondent No. 5 to challenge the termination of thedevelopment agreement – Taking into consideration the subsequentdevelopment and without prejudice to the rights and contentions ofthe respective parties in the proceedings to be initiated, thepetitioners be permitted to withdraw the SLP unconditionally – SLPdismissed as withdrawn.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (C) No.4428 of2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2015 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay in WP No.6142 of 2014.
With
SLP (C) No… Cc No..4922 of 2016.
383
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
ARana Mukherjee, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Advs., Ms.Dharitry Phookan, Ms. Oindrila Sen, Samarth Mohanty, Ms. LanutulaKaranur, Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Chiranjiv Sharma, Ms. Neetika Sharma,Ashok Anand, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Sanjay Jain, ASG, Dhruv Mehta, Neeraj K. Kaul, GurukrishnaBKumar, K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advs., Rahul Chitnis, SiddharathDharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Ms. KirtiDadheech, Nirnimesh Dube, Chirag M. Shroff, Shailendra P. Singh,Sachin Patil, Ms. Garima Bajaj, Nikhil Bamal, Puneet Bindra, HarshSinghal, Raghav, Abhishek Mishra, Sanchit Garga, Kunal Cheema, PuneetSingh Bindra, Simran Jeet, Rishabh Gupta, Ms. Aditi Deshpande Parkhi,CShivam Dube, Nishant Bishnoi, Ms. Daisy Hannah, Apoorv Shukla,Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Puneet Chahar, Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, AyushAcharjee, Satya Mitra, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
DM. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment(s)and order(s) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WritPetition No. 6142/2014 and Writ Petition No. 5490/2014, the presentSpecial Leave Petitions (SLP) have been preferred by some of theEtenants in occupation of the premises in question.
2. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared onbehalf of the petitioners in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4428/2016except petitioner No. 4. Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocatehas appeared on behalf of the petitioners in Special Leave Petition (C)No…CC No. 4922/2016. Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior AdvocateFhas appeared on behalf of the present office bearers. Shri Neeraj KishanKaul, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondentNo. 5 in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016 – main contesting respondent. ShriVenugopal, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf ofrespondent No. 17, Shri Gurukrishna Kumar, learned Senior AdvocateGhas appeared on behalf of respondent No. 16 and Shri Sanjay Jain, learnedASG has appeared on behalf of the State of Maharashtra/MHADA.
3. Two IAs are filed for perjury on behalf of respondent No. 5.One IA is filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 challenging the terminationof the development agreement which was in its favour.
H
3.1 Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalfof the petitioners in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016 has prayed to permit thepetitioners (except petitioner No. 4) to withdraw the SLP in view of thesubsequent development. It is submitted that the subsequent developmentsare mentioned in IA No. 128881/2019. It is pointed out that during thependency of the present proceedings, the development agreement infavour of respondent No. 5 has been terminated on 08.10.2018. It ispointed out that the new development agreement in favour of anotherdeveloper has also been entered into as the new developer has beenappointed. It is further pointed out that even subsequently MaharashtraHousing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) has also terminatedthe development agreement which was in favour of respondent No. 5. Itis submitted that in view of the change circumstances, as such, the causedoes not survive which as such was against respondent No. 5 andtherefore, it is prayed to permit the petitioners to withdraw Special LeavePetition (C) No. 4428/2016.
3.2 Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing onbehalf of the petitioners in SLP (C) No…CC No. 4922/2016 is notdisputing the above. However, he has submitted that so far as the tenantsand/or the petitioners in this SLP are concerned, they are not aware ofthe contents and/or terms and conditions of the new developmentagreement. It is submitted that therefore, the present management maybe directed to furnish the copy of the fresh development agreementwhich has been entered into in favour of new developer so that they canknow on what terms and conditions the fresh development agreementhas been entered into and whether the tenants are agreeable on thesame or not. He has prayed to reserve the liberty in favour of thepetitioners to challenge the fresh development agreement beforeappropriate court/forum, if the petitioners are not agreeable on the termsand conditions on which the fresh development agreement has beenentered into.
3.3 Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate appearingon behalf of respondent No. 5, though has opposed the withdrawal ofthe present SLPs, but has submitted that even respondent No. 5 haschallenged the termination of the development agreement in its favourby way of IA and has also initiated the perjury proceedings. It is prayedthat if this Court is not inclined to permit respondent No. 5 to challengethe termination of respondent No. 5 in the present proceedings and is A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Anot entertaining the perjury application(s), the liberty may be reserved infavour of respondent No. 5 to challenge the termination and subsequentdevelopment agreement in favour of another developer beforeappropriate court/forum and the grounds stated in the perjuryapplication(s) may be directed to be considered in accordance with lawand on its own merits.B
4. Having heard learned senior counsel/counsel appearing on behalfof the respective parties and taking into consideration the subsequentdevelopment so stated and pointed out in IA No. 128881/2019, withoutprejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties in theproceedings to be initiated as observed hereinbelow, considering theCprayer made by Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, we permitthe petitioners in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016 to withdraw the SLPunconditionally. So far as petitioner No. 4 is concerned none has appeared.In view of the subsequent development and even otherwise none hasremained present, the present SLP stands dismissed qua petitioner No.D4 in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016.
SLP (C)…..CC No. 4922/2016
Delay condoned. Substitution application(s) are allowed and thename(s) of legal heirs of concerned petitioners are taken on record andthe memo of parties be amended accordingly.
E
5. SLP (C) No…. CC No. 4922/2016 is disposed of as under: -
(i) This Court has taken note of the termination of thedevelopment agreement which was in favour of respondentNo. 5 and executing/entering into the fresh developmentFagreement. The copy of the fresh development agreementneeds be furnished to the respective tenants by the presentmanagement. If any of the tenants is aggrieved by the termsand conditions of the fresh development agreement, it willbe open for them to challenge the same before appropriatecourt/forum, which may be considered in accordance withGlaw and on its own merits;
(ii) It will also be open for respondent No. 5 whosedevelopment agreement has been terminated by the presentmanagement/MHADA to challenge the termination of thedevelopment agreement and executing the fresh H
S. M. PASHA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[M. R. SHAH, J.]
development agreement before appropriate court/forum andAthe grounds set out in the perjury application(s) may beconsidered in accordance with law and on its own merits.
6. Present Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4428 of 2016 standsdismissed as withdrawn in terms of the above and with the aboveobservations and Special Leave Petition (C) No… CC No. 4922/2016Balso stands disposed of in terms of the above and with the aboveobservations.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Nidhi Jain(Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA)
SLPs disposed of.
C
D
E
F
G
H