Can a dissenting member hold up a society’s redevelopment? Not by objecting that interim possession resembles final relief, the Bombay High Court has held. It ordered a Pune society’s remaining flat occupier to hand over possession by November 20, 2026, permitting police assistance if she failed to comply.
Mumbai: After 17 of an 18-member housing society’s members had vacated, the Bombay High Court has directed the last remaining member to surrender possession of her flat for redevelopment, holding that the courts below wrongly refused a mandatory temporary injunction [Pritam Sadan Sahakari Gruharachana Sanstha Maryadit v. Jyotsna S. Rajopadhya].
The judgment was delivered by Justice Sandeep V. Marne on November 5, 2026 and uploaded on November 6. The writ petition was finally disposed of, but the relief granted concerns the interim possession application in the underlying cooperative dispute.
Possession by November 20; inventory safeguards
The High Court set aside both challenged orders and allowed the application at Exhibit 5 in Dispute No. 42 of 2025. It directed the respondent to hand over Flat No. 3 by November 20, 2026.
If she does not comply, the society may take possession with police assistance, which the local police station has been directed to provide. If she is absent, the society must prepare an inventory of the movable belongings and inform her. If she does not take custody of them, the society may deal with them in accordance with law.
The writ petition was allowed without costs. The permission to take possession is a direction made by the Court in this case, following the society’s application for judicial relief.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Revives Society’s Deemed Conveyance Claim Despite 10-Year Delay
How the dispute reached the High Court
The society’s building is in Ideal Colony, Kothrud, Pune. Redevelopment began with a general-body resolution in 2018. Seventeen of its 18 members supported the selected developer, and a development agreement was registered in April 2026.
The society approached the Cooperative Court seeking possession of Flat No. 3. That court rejected its interim application on April 29, 2026. On September 10, the Cooperative Appellate Court dismissed the society’s appeal, despite accepting that a mandatory injunction could be granted at an interim stage.
The society’s counsel told the High Court that the other members had vacated and received transit rent, while the remaining flat prevented demolition and reconstruction. The judgment records that the respondent had not appeared before either cooperative court. In the High Court, private service was returned with a ‘door locked’ remark; a bailiff subsequently confirmed that the flat was locked. The Court proceeded because of the urgency it found.
Interim relief must protect the redevelopment project
Justice Marne examined Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, (1990) 2 SCC 117, which requires a strong case, prevention of serious or irreparable injury and a favourable balance of convenience for an interlocutory mandatory injunction.
The Cooperative Court had misunderstood that decision, he held. Courts also need to consider whether withholding the injunction creates a greater risk of injustice than granting it.
In paragraphs 11 and 12, the Court explained that the consenting members who have left their homes bear the consequences when a dissenting occupier prevents the project from proceeding. A rigid objection that interim possession resembles final relief could frustrate the very redevelopment project the litigation seeks to preserve.
The judgment also relied on earlier Bombay High Court decisions concerning the binding effect of a society’s development agreement and interim directions to dissenting members to vacate.
A strong case once the majority decision and vacation deadline are established
In paragraph 16, Justice Marne held that a strong prima facie case should be presumed where minority dissent holds up redevelopment. For this purpose, the applicant must show that the majority has decided to redevelop through the selected developer and that the time to hand over possession has arrived.
The Court separately found irreparable injury and a balance of convenience favouring this society. The developer was already paying transit rent, and failure to obtain the entire building could leave the project stuck. The respondent would receive transit rent from the date she vacated and a flat in the reconstructed building.
The appellate court should have taken account of the later material fixing May 31, 2026 as the vacation deadline, rather than sending the society back to the trial court with another application. Justice Marne criticised that approach for prolonging the litigation.
Case: Pritam Sadan Sahakari Gruharachana Sanstha Maryadit v. Jyotsna S. Rajopadhya
Number: Writ Petition No. 14139 of 2026
Court and Bench: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Decision: November 5, 2026
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:45405
Outcome: Writ petition allowed; refusals of interim relief set aside; possession directed by November 20, with police assistance on default. No costs.