/2023 INSC 0093/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP(C) NO. 4428 OF 2016
S.M. Pasha & Ors.               ...Petitioner(S)
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors.                    ...Respondent(S)
With 
SLP(C) NO... CC No. 4922 OF 2016
O R D E R
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   impugned
judgment(s)   and   order(s)   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6142/2014 and
Writ   Petition   No.   5490/2014,   the   present   Special   Leave
Petitions (SLP) have been preferred by some of the tenants
in occupation of the premises in question. 
1

2. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on
behalf   of   the   petitioners   in   Special   Leave   Petition   (C)   No.
4428/2016  except  petitioner   No.  4.  Shri  Rana  Mukherjee,
learned   Senior   Advocate   has   appeared   on   behalf   of   the
petitioners   in   Special   Leave   Petition   (C)   No…CC   No.
4922/2016.   Shri   Dhruv   Mehta,   learned   Senior   Advocate
has   appeared  on   behalf   of   the  present   office  bearers.  Shri
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate has appeared
on behalf of respondent No. 5 in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016 –
main   contesting   respondent.   Shri   Venugopal,   learned
Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.
17, Shri Gurukrishna Kumar, learned Senior Advocate has
appeared  on  behalf of  respondent No.  16  and Shri Sanjay
Jain,   learned   ASG   has   appeared   on   behalf   of   the   State   of
Maharashtra/MHADA.
3. Two IAs are filed for perjury on behalf of respondent No. 5.
One   IA   is   filed   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.   5   challenging
the   termination   of   the   development   agreement   which   was
in its favour.     
2

3.1 Dr.   A.M.   Singhvi,   learned   Senior   Advocate,   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   petitioners   in   SLP   (C)   No.   4428/2016   has
prayed to permit the petitioners (except petitioner No. 4) to
withdraw  the SLP in view of the subsequent development.
It   is   submitted   that   the   subsequent   developments   are
mentioned   in   IA   No.   128881/2019.   It   is   pointed   out   that
during   the   pendency   of   the   present   proceedings,   the
development agreement in favour of respondent No. 5 has
been  terminated on  08.10.2018. It is pointed out  that  the
new development agreement in favour of another developer
has also been entered into as the new developer has been
appointed. It is further pointed out that even subsequently
Maharashtra   Housing   and   Area   Development   Authority
(MHADA)   has   also   terminated   the   development   agreement
which   was   in   favour   of   respondent   No.   5.   It   is   submitted
that   in   view   of   the   change   circumstances,   as   such,   the
cause   does   not   survive   which   as   such   was   against
respondent No. 5 and therefore, it is prayed to  permit the
petitioners   to   withdraw   Special   Leave   Petition   (C)   No.
4428/2016.       
3

3.2 Shri   Rana   Mukherjee,   learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing
on   behalf   of   the   petitioners   in   SLP   (C)   No…CC   No.
4922/2016   is   not   disputing   the   above.   However,   he   has
submitted that so far as the tenants and/or the petitioners
in   this   SLP   are   concerned,   they   are   not   aware   of   the
contents   and/or   terms   and   conditions   of   the   new
development agreement. It is submitted that therefore, the
present   management   may   be   directed   to   furnish   the   copy
of   the   fresh   development   agreement   which   has   been
entered   into   in   favour   of   new   developer   so   that   they   can
know on what terms and conditions the fresh development
agreement has been entered into and whether the tenants
are agreeable on the same or not. He has prayed to reserve
the   liberty   in   favour   of   the   petitioners   to   challenge   the
fresh   development   agreement   before   appropriate
court/forum,   if   the   petitioners   are   not   agreeable   on   the
terms   and   conditions   on   which   the   fresh   development
agreement has been entered into. 
3.3 Shri   Neeraj   Kishan   Kaul,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.   5,   though   has
4

opposed   the   withdrawal   of   the   present   SLPs,   but   has
submitted   that   even   respondent   No.   5   has   challenged   the
termination of the development agreement in its favour by
way of IA and has also initiated the perjury proceedings. It
is   prayed   that   if   this   Court   is   not   inclined   to   permit
respondent   No.   5   to   challenge   the   termination   of
respondent   No.   5   in   the   present   proceedings   and   is   not
entertaining   the   perjury   application(s),   the   liberty   may   be
reserved   in   favour   of   respondent   No.   5   to   challenge   the
termination   and   subsequent   development   agreement   in
favour   of   another   developer   before   appropriate
court/forum   and   the   grounds   stated   in   the   perjury
application(s)   may   be   directed   to   be   considered   in
accordance with law and on its own merits.  
4. Having heard learned senior counsel/counsel appearing on
behalf   of   the   respective   parties   and   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,
5

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.  So far as
petitioner No. 4 is concerned none has appeared. In view of
the subsequent development and even otherwise none has
remained   present,   the   present   SLP   stands   dismissed   qua
petitioner No. 4 in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016. 
SLP (C)…..CC No. 4922/2016
Delay   condoned.   Substitution   application(s)   are   allowed
and the name(s) of legal heirs of concerned petitioners are
taken   on   record   and   the   memo   of   parties   be   amended
accordingly.  
5. SLP (C) No…. CC No. 4922/2016 is disposed of as under: ­
(i) This   Court   has   taken   note   of   the   termination   of   the
development   agreement   which   was   in   favour   of
respondent   No.   5   and   executing/entering   into   the
fresh   development   agreement.   The   copy   of   the   fresh
development   agreement   needs   be   furnished   to   the
6

respective tenants by the present management. If any
of   the   tenants   is   aggrieved   by   the   terms   and
conditions of the fresh development agreement, it will
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;
(ii) It   will   also   be   open   for   respondent   No.   5   whose
development   agreement   has   been   terminated   by   the
present   management/MHADA   to   challenge   the
termination   of   the   development   agreement   and
executing   the   fresh   development   agreement   before
appropriate   court/forum   and   the   grounds   set   out   in
the   perjury   application(s)   may   be   considered   in
accordance with law and on its own merits.    
6. Present Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4428 of 2016 stands
dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the above and with the
above observations and Special Leave Petition (C) No… CC
No.   4922/2016   also   stands   disposed   of   in   terms   of   the
above and with the above observations. 
7.
7

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
 
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
…………………………………J.
 (SANJAY KAROL)
NEW DELHI, 
FEBRUARY 17, 2023.
8