Right To Alternate Accommodation Under Redevelopment Plan Is Conferred Upon Person In Possession Of Premises, Not Owner: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that a woman in possession of a flat, though claimed to be a gratuitous licensee by the registered owner, cannot be dispossessed merely on account of redevelopment proceedings. The Court modified the directions issued by the Single Judge and directed that she be put back in possession of the redeveloped flat and receive transit rent, while the registered owner would execute the redevelopment agreement and receive the corpus amount.
A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing two commercial arbitration appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by Ritesh Haldar and Rohitesh Haldar, challenging the interim reliefs granted to the developer (Elite Housing LLP) by a Single Judge under Section 9 of the Act.
The dispute concerned a flat owned by Ritesh. His brother Rohitesh and his wife Leena had been residing there since their marriage. Leena claimed it as her matrimonial home and was in physical possession of the flat with her two children. The developer had moved the High Court under Section 9 seeking possession for redevelopment. The Single Judge had permitted execution of the redevelopment agreement via the Court Receiver and directed that Leena be given possession of the redeveloped flat and paid transit rent.
While modifying that part of the order which directed the Court Receiver to execute the redevelopment agreement, the Court held:
“In absence of pendency of any litigation, execution of PAAA with the Court Receiver is unwarranted... PAAA needs to be executed in the name of the person whose name is reflected in the records of the Society.”
Accordingly, the Court ordered that the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) be executed in Ritesh's name, and the corpus amount be paid to him, subject to claims by other family members.
However, it upheld Leena's right to possession and stated:
“Leena's possession is admitted by Ritesh, who claims to be the exclusive owner of the flat. In ordinary circumstances, Ritesh will have to secure a decree from the court of competent jurisdiction for [the] eviction of Leena. He cannot circumvent that procedure in law and use the redevelopment process to evict Leena. Merely because [the] redevelopment process requires handing over of possession of old premises to the developer, the same would not mean that the person in actual possession of old premises would lose such possession.”
The Court emphasised that since Leena would be handing over possession of the premises, it is Leena alone who must be put in possession of alternate accommodation.
Further, it ruled that transit rent needs to be paid to Leena, who would be dispossessed and needs to make interim arrangements in some other house during the redevelopment process.
Consequently, the commercial arbitration appeal was partly allowed.
Case Title: Ritesh Haldar & Anr. v. Elite Housing LLP & Ors. [Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) Nos. 14486 & 15542 of 2025]