The defaults by the Developer have undoubtedly caused immense prejudice and harm to the members of the Society. The hardship to the members is real and immediate; the so-called hardship to the Developers is notional. When it spent in the
project, this was no altruism or charity. It was an investment toward great profit. Every investment involves risk. The Developer gambled on the project. Receiving monthly rent is not a sop, not a matter of ‘convenience’. It is a matter of survival. Therefore, the non-payment of dues, the delays in project completion, and not paying transit rent for months together speaks to an inherent, and constantly growing, social injustice. It should not be allowed to continue. Therefore, apart from the exceptionally strong prima facie case that the Society makes
out, the ‘balance of convenience’ is decidedly in its favour.
The society’s members
agree to this upheaval, to move out altogether, to separate from each
other while their new homes are built. The promise to them is that
they will be looked after and provided for while their new homes are
being built. Days, weeks, months and years pass; the members do not
receive the promised rent. Thus begins the downward slide. The
promised homes are delayed, then delayed further, and then delayed
even further. This cuts at the root of the initial entrustment. A
development project for a society demands commitment, fidelity,
respect and honesty. When these begin to disappear, the contractual
relationship collapses. Where there was anticipation and confidence,
there is now just bitterness, disappointment and despair. There is a
breakdown of confidence, and there is only distrust. Loss of faith and
confidence on account of contractual violations and breaches by a
developer are sufficient grounds to find for the society and against the developer. Gopi Gorwani v Ideal Cooperative Housing Society Ltd & Ors, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1967. Indeed, I would go a step further. There is urgency for the society. Therefore, the slightest delay in project completion, unless specifically accepted by the society, and even one single default in payment of transit rent or other dues is actually sufficient to warrant a termination. There is no such thing in these matters as ‘substantial compliance’. That is not the principle of obligations in the realm of private law.
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 74 OF 2020
Rajawadi Arunodaya Co-op Hsg Soc Ltd Vs Value Projects Pvt Ltd.,
CORAM : G.S.Patel, J.
DATED : 15th March 2021
Print Page