Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Section 9 Order Directing Handover of Redeveloped Flat and Transit Benefits to Occupant in Possession. Court Reiterates Principle that Redevelopment Cannot Be Used to Evict Occupant and that the Person Dishoused Must Receive Transit Rent and Be Put Back in Possession of New Flat Under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Commercial arbitration appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an interim order passed under Section 9 directing execution of tripartite agreement and handover of possession of a flat for redevelopment to the occupant instead of the claimed owner.

The Appellants sought to set aside the order of the Single Judge and instead direct that the redevelopment agreement be executed with Ritesh Haldar, and all monetary benefits and new flat possession be given to him.

The Appellants were aggrieved because the Single Judge directed that the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement be executed, and all redevelopment benefits be paid to the occupant Leena, and the new flat be handed over to her, rather than to the claimed owner Ritesh Haldar.

The learned Single Judge, by order dated 16 April 2025, allowed the Section 9 petition, granting liberty to the developer to approach the Court Receiver, directing issuance of notices, taking of possession, payment of all amounts to Leena, and delivery of new flat to Leena. The Single Judge also granted liberty to other family members to approach the appropriate forum for title claims.

Whether the Single Judge's interim order correctly directed that the occupant in possession (Leena) be given the redevelopment benefits and new flat, instead of the claimed owner (Ritesh Haldar)? Whether the redevelopment process can be used to evict an occupant without due process?

Appellant Ritesh Haldar argued he is the owner and entitled to execute PAAA and receive all redevelopment benefits; Leena is a gratuitous licensee. Appellant Rohitesh Haldar argued he also resides in the flat and Leena does not have exclusive possession. Leena argued she is in actual possession with children, the flat is her matrimonial home, and she has a right of residence. The developer supported the impugned order.

Where a building is taken up for redevelopment, the person in actual possession of the premises, who is dishoused, is entitled to receive transit rent and be put back in possession of the new flat, regardless of inter se title disputes. The redevelopment process cannot be used to evict an occupant without due process. Interim measures under Section 9 can be granted to secure possession for redevelopment while protecting the occupant's rights.

Redevelopment process cannot be utilized for the purpose of seeking eviction of an occupant from the old premises possession of the permanent alternate accommodation must be handed over and the transit rent must be paid to the person, who was actually in possession of the old premises He cannot circumvent that procedure in law and use the redevelopment process for the same

The developer Elite Housing LLP filed Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 155 of 2025 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Court Receiver to secure possession of Flat No. 12 for redevelopment. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 16 April 2025, allowed the petition, granting liberty to approach Court Receiver, directing issuance of notices, taking of possession, payment of all amounts to Leena, and delivery of new flat to Leena upon completion. Aggrieved, Ritesh Haldar filed Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 14486 of 2025 and Rohitesh Haldar filed Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 15542 of 2025 under Section 37 of the Act. Both appeals were heard together and finally disposed of by the Division Bench on 24 June 2025, dismissing both appeals and upholding the Single Judge's order.

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 9, 37