S. M. PASHA & ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

                         [2023] 2 S.C.R. 383                            383


                      S. M. PASHA & ORS.                                A
                                 v.
               STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
                    (SLP(C) No. 4428 of 2016)
                         FEBRUARY 17, 2023                              B
             [M. R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR AND
                       SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
       Constitution of India: Art. 136 – Special Leave Petition by
the tenants in occupation of the premises – Respondent no. 5 filed
two IAs for perjury and one IA challenging the termination of the       C
development agreement – During the pendency of the proceedings,
the development agreement in favour of respondent No. 5 was
terminated by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development
Authority – New development agreement in favour of another
developer has been entered into as the new developer has been           D
appointed – Petitioner ’s case that in view of the changed
circumstances the cause of action did not survive which as such
was against respondent No. 5 , and thus, the SLP be permitted to be
withdrawn – Held: Copy of the fresh development agreement needs
be furnished to the respective tenants by the present management –
                                                                        E
If any of the tenants is aggrieved by the terms and conditions of the
fresh development agreement, it would be open for them to challenge
the same before appropriate court/forum – Further, it would also
be open for respondent No. 5 to challenge the termination of the
development agreement – Taking into consideration the subsequent
development and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of      F
the respective parties in the proceedings to be initiated, the
petitioners be permitted to withdraw the SLP unconditionally – SLP
dismissed as withdrawn.
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (C) No.4428 of
2016.                                                                   G

      From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2015 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in WP No.6142 of 2014.
        With
        SLP (C) No… Cc No..4922 of 2016.                                H
                              383
384            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A           Rana Mukherjee, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Advs., Ms.
      Dharitry Phookan, Ms. Oindrila Sen, Samarth Mohanty, Ms. Lanutula
      Karanur, Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Chiranjiv Sharma, Ms. Neetika Sharma,
      Ashok Anand, Advs. for the Petitioners.
            Sanjay Jain, ASG, Dhruv Mehta, Neeraj K. Kaul, Gurukrishna
B     Kumar, K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advs., Rahul Chitnis, Siddharath
      Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Ms. Kirti
      Dadheech, Nirnimesh Dube, Chirag M. Shroff, Shailendra P. Singh,
      Sachin Patil, Ms. Garima Bajaj, Nikhil Bamal, Puneet Bindra, Harsh
      Singhal, Raghav, Abhishek Mishra, Sanchit Garga, Kunal Cheema, Puneet
      Singh Bindra, Simran Jeet, Rishabh Gupta, Ms. Aditi Deshpande Parkhi,
C     Shivam Dube, Nishant Bishnoi, Ms. Daisy Hannah, Apoorv Shukla,
      Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Puneet Chahar, Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Ayush
      Acharjee, Satya Mitra, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Order of the Court was delivered by

D           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
E     tenants in occupation of the premises in question.
            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)
F     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
G     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.
H
           S. M. PASHA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                                385
                       [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       3.1 Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf     A
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
                                                                              B
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         C
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.
       3.2 Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on          D
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            E
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               F
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 opposed the withdrawal of           G
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
                                                                              H
386                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     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.
B
             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, considering the
C     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.
D     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.
E
            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
F                    agreement. The copy of the fresh development agreement
                     needs be furnished to the 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
G                    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
H
            S. M. PASHA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                                 387
                        [M. R. SHAH, J.]

               development agreement before appropriate court/forum and         A
               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                B
also stands disposed of in terms of the above and with the above
observations.
       7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Nidhi Jain                                                  SLPs disposed of.
                                                                                C
(Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA)




                                                                                D




                                                                                E




                                                                                F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H