-Report by Mushkan Vasani
Supreme Court while hearing the special leave petition on 17th February 2023 in the case of S.M. Pasha & Ors. (Petitioner) Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors (Respondents) allows the petitioners to withdraw the special leave petition and dispose of all the pending applications if any.
In the present case, the Petitioners aggrieved with the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court Of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6142/2014 and Writ Petition No. 5490/2014 filed these SLPs before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Petitioners (except petitioner no. 4) states that the development agreement with Respondent no. 5 is terminated by the present management / Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority (MHADA) and fresh development agreement is entered into with a new developer and the cause for this petition did not survive due to the change in circumstances.
However, Respondent No. 5 opposed the withdrawal of SLPs and challenged the termination of his development agreement by way of an Interim Application and also initiated perjury proceedings.
The petitioner contended before this hon’ble court to permit the withdrawal of this Special Leave Petition no. 4428/2016.
The respondents opposed the withdrawal of SLPs and challenged the termination of the development agreement and fresh development agreement with the new developer and also consideration of perjury application in accordance with the law.
- The Hon’ble Court after hearing all the facts in the present case dismissed the present SLP No. 4428/2016 due to a change in circumstances.
- Condoned the delay with respect to SLP CC no. 4922/2016 and disposed of the SLP CC No. 4922/2016 by taking note of the termination of the development agreement and directing the present management to furnish a copy of the fresh development agreement to the tenants;
- Also liberty is given to the tenants to challenge the fresh development agreement before the appropriate court/forum if the terms and conditions mentioned therein are not agreeable.
- The Court also allowed respondent no. 5 to challenge the termination of his development agreement and subsequent development agreement before the appropriate court and allowed the perjury application for consideration on its merits.
CITATION: SLP(C) NO. 4428 OF 2016
READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3XM704h