Cause Does Not Survive Against Respondent Due To Termination Of Development Agreement- SC While Dismissing Tenants' SLP
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as the petitioners-tenants withdrew it on the ground that the cause did not survive against the respondent as the development agreement in favour of respondent No. 5 was terminated.
The Bench of Justice M.R. Shah, Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol said that “taking into consideration the subsequent development so stated and pointed out in IA No. 128881/2019, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties in the proceedings to be initiated as observed hereinbelow, considering the prayer made by Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, we permit the petitioners in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016 to withdraw the SLP unconditionally.”
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee appeared for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta appeared for the office bearers, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul appeared for the respondent no. 5, Senior Advocate Venugopal, Senior Advocate Gurukrishna Kumar and ASG Sanjay Jain appeared for the respondent.
In this case, two Special Leave Petition had been preferred by tenants in occupation of the premises in question. Two IAs had been filed for perjury on behalf of the respondent no. 5 and one IA was filed wherein termination of the development agreement executed in favour of the respondent no. 5 was challenged.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to change in the circumstances, the cause did not survive against the respondent no. 5 and therefore, prayed to permit the petitioners to withdraw Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4428/2016.
The Court was apprised of the fact that during the pendency of the proceedings, the development agreement was terminated by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and new development agreement in favour of another developer had also been entered into as the new developer had been appointed.
With regard to first SLP- the Apex Court dismissed the SLP as withdrawn.
With regard to second SLP- the Apex Court ordered that copy of the fresh development agreement needed to be furnished to the respective tenants by the present management and if any of the tenants was aggrieved by the terms and conditions of the fresh development agreement, it would be open for them to challenge the same before appropriate court/forum, which may be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits.
Further, it said that it was open for the respondent no. 5 to challenge the termination of the development agreement.
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was disposed.
Cause Title- S.M. Pasha & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.