ORDER 1. The plaintiff is the developer of the property of defendant No.2 society. Defendant No.1 is one of the 36 members of defendant No.2 society. Defendant No.2 society was to be redeveloped. The members of the society attended various meetings and resolved to redevelop their property. Defendant No.1 has attended all of these meetings. He is the owner of flat No. C 26 in the building of the society. 2. The initial meeting on 23.09.2006 resolved for a new tower to be constructed and proposals of various builders to be obtained for the construction. The meeting of 24.03.2007 appointed 8 members on a committee for the redevelopment of the tower. The meeting of 12.04.2008 considered the corpus fund, additional area and amenities. The meeting on 21.11.2009 considered the 7 proposals which were received. These proposals were given to the members for study and search. The selection was to be decided by secret voting. The meeting on 12.12.2009 was for selecting the builder/developer upon the proposals received and opened on 21.11.2009. The developers were short listed. The voting was held by secret ballot. The plaintiff was approved to be the redeveloper. 3. The redevelopment agreement came to be executed by the society and the plaintiff. It came to be confirmed by all the members including defendant No.1. On 07.04.2011 the finalization of allotment of flats came to be done. Defendant No.1 was allotted flat No.804. This agreement was confirmed by 30 out 36 members including defendant No.1. A supplemental agreement came to be executed later by the other members who accepted the same terms. Consequently 100% of the members of the society of defendant No.2 including defendant No.1 having accepted the terms of the agreement with the plaintiff. 4. The BMC circular relating to fungible FSI came to be issued on 12.01.2012. 5. The AGM held on 15.09.2014 of which minutes were recorded on 23.09.2014 showed that the 30 out of 35 members were present and signed the consent to vacate the flats without putting any condition. 5 members did not vacate the flats. Defendant No.1 was one of them. He sued in the Cooperative Court challenging the resolution passed by the society in the meeting attended by him and which were signed by him also. No ad interim order has been obtained by defendant No.1. 5 members did not vacate the flats. Defendant No.1 was one of them. He sued in the Cooperative Court challenging the resolution passed by the society in the meeting attended by him and which were signed by him also. No ad interim order has been obtained by defendant No.1. The plaintiff herein challenged the inherent jurisdiction of that Court under Section 9A of the CPC. The plaint has been returned. 6. Thereafter the plaintiff and defendant No.2 society executed a supplemental agreement on 20.10.2014 in keeping with the additional rights of the members of the society under the aforesaid circular. In that agreement the plaintiff agreed to give each of the members double the amount earlier agreed upon and an additional area considering the FSI. The plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.4 lacs to each member instead of Rs.2 lacs as agreed earlier and to pay monthly rent Rs.45 per sq. ft. of carpet area instead 28 per sq. ft. agreed earlier. In para7 of that agreement the plaintiff confirmed that the plaintiff shall allot the society the built up area admeasuring 1902.56 sq. mtrs. + the eligible 35% fungible area admeasuring 665.90 sq. mtrs. + 10% additional built up area admeasuring 210 sq. mtrs. totaling to 2778.46 sq. mtrs. of built up area. Hence the plaintiff abided by the new circular and the members as also defendant No.2 society got larger consideration under their agreement. The said agreement has been signed by the chairman and the treasurer of defendant No.2 society which received Rs.72 lacs under the agreement with the plaintiff. 7. Defendant No.1 agreed to each of the terms of redevelopment and signed each of the meetings until the time came for him to vacate his flat. He breached his agreement, his confirmation and his consent and failed to vacate. He unsuccessfully pursued legal proceedings. 8. Defendant No.1 contends that a professional architect has not been appointed under the Circular of the Government dated 03.01.2009. However the agreement of the plaintiff with defendant No.2 society and its members including defendant No.1 was prior to the circular. The plaintiff abided by the main consideration under the circular and has granted all the members rights there under. The technical plea of the professional architect is not only misconceived but counterproductive. 9. All the other 35 members vacated the suit premises. The plaintiff has paid them the transit consideration. The plaintiff abided by the main consideration under the circular and has granted all the members rights there under. The technical plea of the professional architect is not only misconceived but counterproductive. 9. All the other 35 members vacated the suit premises. The plaintiff has paid them the transit consideration. The plans have been sanctioned. The plaintiff has been unable to proceed to develop the suit property and has incurred considerable damages which would be considered only in the suit. 10. The plaintiff has called upon defendant No.1 to vacate the suit premises under prayer (c) of the Notice of Motion. The plaintiff has called upon the Court to grant an injunction against defendant No.1 against the interference and obstruction to the redevelopment under the development agreement entered into by and between the parties. The plaintiff presses for receiver if defendant No.1 does not hand over physical possession. 11. The argument of defendant No.1 is only that the plans have been sanctioned after the circular came to be issued which could not have been done. The plans have been sanctioned taking into account the fungible FSI which the plaintiff has agreed to grant. The plaintiff has produced the list of existing area and the proposed area to be equally granted to all the 36 members including defendant No.1, 35 of whom have accepted. 12. As per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vasant Kheraj Bhanushali Vs. Goregaon Siddharth Nagar Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Ltd. in Writ Petition (L) No. 851 of 2010 dated 10.02.2011 consent once given cannot be allowed to be revoked at the whim and fancy of individual occupants. If that was allowed no scheme of redevelopment would be successfully implemented. The judgment observes 70% of the occupant to agree as per the law. In this case 100% of the occupants including defendant No.1 have agreed. This Court held in the case of M/s. Akash Pruthvi Lifestyle Vs. Akash Coop. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. 2013(7) ALL MR 245 considering the Government Circular dated 03.01.2009 that the member who attended all the meetings, who was present when the decision was taken, who executed the consent letter, who agreed for redevelopment was bound by its terms more specially the revised offer given by the developer. Akash Coop. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. 2013(7) ALL MR 245 considering the Government Circular dated 03.01.2009 that the member who attended all the meetings, who was present when the decision was taken, who executed the consent letter, who agreed for redevelopment was bound by its terms more specially the revised offer given by the developer. It was observed that 15 members in that society who passed the resolution had accepted the allotment of the flat and acknowledged and signed the terms but had not handed over vacant possession. It was held that the decision of the majority would be binding on minority who cannot obstruct the process of development. 13. Consequently a strong prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff of being allowed to carry out the redevelopment work as per the last agreement dated 20.10.2014 executed by the plaintiff and defendant No.2 society through its chairman and treasurer. Defendant No.1 shall hand over vacant possession of his flat No.C26 to the plaintiff within two weeks, failing which the Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai shall stand appointed as the receiver in respect of the flat of defendant No.1 to take forcible possession from defendant No.1 and to hand over the same to the plaintiff for the commencement of the redevelopment work. Defendant No.1 is restrained from obstructing or interfering with the construction and redevelopment work as per plans submitted in accordance with the aforesaid agreement. 14. The Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly. 15. Defendant No.1 has not filed his written statement despite service of the plaint and proceeding. Defendant No.1 shall file written statement within 30 days, failing which the suit shall be placed on board for ex parte decree.