JUDGMENT : Milind N. Jadhav, J. 1. Heard Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for Plaintiff; Mr. Arora, Advocate for Defendant No. 1 and Mr. Parab, learned Advocate forDefendant Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The immediate grievance of Plaintiff is with respect to the area of the suit premises i.e. room No. G-4 on the ground floor been occupied by Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. There is no doubt or impediment in recognizing Defendants' right for entitlement to alternate accommodation. The only lis as argued by Mr. Parab is with respect to the area claimed by the private Defendants. While considering this submission, I will also refer to other grievances of Defendants which have been voiced before me. 3. Mr. Singh, learned Advocate appears for Plaintiff / Developer. He would submit that except Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 in respect of one flat who are in occupation of flat No. G-4, all other Defendants / occupants / members of the Society have already vacated their respective premises and handed over the same to the Developer. He submits that they are all signatories to the Development Agreement which is appended to the Suit plaint. Society's Advocate endorses this fact. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 being successors-in-title of original tenant - occupant Ms. Suvarnalata J. Samant are entitled to rights and entitlement in the suit flat. Ms. Sawant expired one and half month ago. Mr. Parab would inform the Court that original tenant made a Will on the basis of which steps have been taken but that would be a different cause of action for the Defendants, but the Defendants are ad idem regarding their case and there is no dispute amongst them regarding approaching the Developer for execution of PAAA. Mr. Singh informs the Court that all other members have already executed and registered their PAAA and are receiving transit rent. 4. Mr. Parab in response to the case of Plaintiff would draw my attention to the affidavit in reply of Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and would submit that he is opposing the area statement given by Corporation (appended at Exh. "E", page No. 51 of suit plaint) which is part of the registered Development Agreement since the area which has been shown therein as existing carpet area is 314.50 sq.ft as against Flat No. G-4. Mr. 2 to 5 and would submit that he is opposing the area statement given by Corporation (appended at Exh. "E", page No. 51 of suit plaint) which is part of the registered Development Agreement since the area which has been shown therein as existing carpet area is 314.50 sq.ft as against Flat No. G-4. Mr. Singh would submit that the existing actual carpet area is the area which has been offered and given to each and every other occupant / member of the Society as stated therein. He would submit that this document forms part of registered Development Agreement. He would submit that due to the dispute raised by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, they have not even executed the Development Agreement alongwith other members of the Society and even as on date not handed over possession which is delaying the development. He would submit that any grievance of Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 for seeking excess / extra area than that offered to other members will have to be the subject matter of appropriate proceedings filed by them and on the strength of their evidence and cannot be granted in present proceedings. 5. Mr. Parab would submit that Defendant No. 2 is present in Court. He would submit that answering Defendants are not aversed to handing over possession of the suit premises to the Developer at all. In fact to show bonafides of Defendants, he has handed over the key of the G-4 flat in Court to Mr. Singh who in turn has handed it over to his Advocate on record representing the Plaintiff / Developer and Developer shall take possession of the same. Mr. Parab informs the Court that there are certain articles which are lying there. In that view of the matter, the Developer shall permit the Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 to remove their articles within a period of one week from today at a mutually convenient time to be agreed upon between the parties. Mr. Singh shall ensure that the aforesaid exercise shall be carried out appropriately. 6. Mr. Parab next persuades the Court to hear his grievances qua entitlement of Defendants to extra area. He would submit that his affidavit in reply lists out all the details. Mr. Singh shall ensure that the aforesaid exercise shall be carried out appropriately. 6. Mr. Parab next persuades the Court to hear his grievances qua entitlement of Defendants to extra area. He would submit that his affidavit in reply lists out all the details. He would at the outset draw my attention to the map of the premises which is appended at page No. 248 of Interim Application and then invite my attention to page No. 106 which is the letter dated 08.07.2005 issued by the Assistant Engineer of the Corporation to Defendant No. 2, inter alia, in respect of the suit premises. On reading the said letter, he would persuade the Court to consider directing the Developer to include the extra area of the toilet blocks (which according to him were unauthorizedly demolished) into the area to be offered to Defendant Nos. 2 to 5. Mr. Parab would vehemently persuade me to consider the fact that in the letter addressed by Corporation there is reference to a 1980 plan which shows that the toilet blocks & bathrooms were standing right adjacent to the suit flat G-4. He would submit that when the Defendants approached the Corporation, Corporation informed the Defendants that Corporation cannot take any steps for acceding to their request. Such stand of the Corporation is clearly elucidated from the reading of letter dated 08.07.2005. More than 20 years have passed thereafter without the Defendants taking any steps in furtherance thereof for claiming this additional area. Be that as it may, today when the time for redevelopment has come, Mr. Parab on behalf of Defendants would submit that Defendants are entitled to this extra area. Next he would draw my attention to page No. 108 which is a reply to the RTI Application filed by Defendants in the year 2022. He would submit that Defendants sought details and plans with respect to said toilet blocks which were constructed adjacent to suit flat G-4 and which according to Defendants' instructions and as informed by Corporation were in exclusive use of Defendants. This fact however is strongly refuted by Mr. Singh. Be that as it may, that would be an issue to be decided by the appropriate Court if at all the Defendants file appropriate proceedings. 7. Thereafter Mr. Parab has invited my attention to twin letters appended at Exh. "L", page No. 103 and Exh. This fact however is strongly refuted by Mr. Singh. Be that as it may, that would be an issue to be decided by the appropriate Court if at all the Defendants file appropriate proceedings. 7. Thereafter Mr. Parab has invited my attention to twin letters appended at Exh. "L", page No. 103 and Exh. "N", page No. 106 which according to him are clear indication of the fact that the toilet blocks were used exclusively by the occupants of Flat No. G-4. Be that as it may this Court cannot enter into that controversy and give any declaratory decision or opinion on merits on that issue in these proceedings. 8. Next Mr. Parab would draw my attention to Index II document appended at page No. 79 in respect of the suit premises wherein the area ({ks=QG) is shown as 360.32 sq.ft. carpet area. On the basis of the aforesaid, Mr. Parab would persuade the Court to direct the Plaintiff to include the area of the toilet blocks in PAAA which shall be executed with Defendants. 9. Having heard the respective submissions advanced by both the learned Advocates, I have made it clear to Mr. Parab that the controversy before me is not with respect to deciding entitlement of the area to the Defendants. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 undoubtedly can agitate their substantive right with respect to seeking additional area on the basis of the aforesaid documents by filing appropriate Suit seeking appropriate declaratory reliefs qua the Defendants and also qua the documentation referred to by the Society / Corporation with respect to the area occupied by Defendants as it is a separate cause of action. 10. Insofar as the present lis is concerned, the same stands worked out. The redevelopment of the property cannot be withheld by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 until their grievance are met with. Needless to state that if Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 approaches the Trial Court by filing appropriate proceedings seeking declaratory reliefs, Trial Court shall determine the same on the basis of the aforesaid grounds and documents and all other grounds that will be available to Defendants to seek additional area in the said proceedings as per their entitlement and eligibility. 11. Needless to state that Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 approaches the Trial Court by filing appropriate proceedings seeking declaratory reliefs, Trial Court shall determine the same on the basis of the aforesaid grounds and documents and all other grounds that will be available to Defendants to seek additional area in the said proceedings as per their entitlement and eligibility. 11. Needless to state that Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 shall be entitled to refer to and rely upon any of the sanctioned / approved plan which may enure to their benefit for seeking additional area but in appropriate proceedings only. Another grievance raised by Mr. Parab is that the Development Agreement makes reference to two meetings of the Society and out of the said two meetings, one was a meeting of the Managing Committee and not a General Body Meeting. He would submit that, in such circumstances, discussion of the Managing Committee meeting would not be amenable to or binding upon the general body of members. If any such grievance is to be raised, the same can be raised in appropriate proceedings which shall be open to the Defendant Nos. 2 to 5. All contentions are expressly kept open. 12. In the event if Defendant Nos 2 to 5 file appropriate proceedings seeking any declaratory relief in the Civil Court as available to them qua flat No. G-4 for additional area and take out any Application below Exh. 5, the Civil Court shall ensure that said Application is determined as expeditiously as possible in order to ameliorate the grievances of Defendants. That apart Mr. Parab has also informed the Court that Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have not been recognized as members of the Society till date and they have filed appropriate proceedings before the Co-operative Court. He would submit that transfer Application of Defendants pursuant to demise of their mother one month back is still pending with the Society. Society shall look into the same and ensure that the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. Mr. Singh assures the Court that entitlement of flat G-4 will be given by the Developer at par all other members who have received the benefit of PAAA and transit rent. Mr. Singh informs Court that these Defendants can sign the Development Agreement and PAAA if they are agreeable to receive the benefit received by all other members and at par with them. Mr. Singh informs Court that these Defendants can sign the Development Agreement and PAAA if they are agreeable to receive the benefit received by all other members and at par with them. That call will be of the Defendant Nos. 2 to 5. 13. Needless to state that this Court has not expressed any imprimatur or opinion on the right, title and entitlement of Defendants to claim extra area and it shall be open for them to agitate and seek appropriate orders from the Civil Court in respect of the same. 14. Needless to state that whatever has been given to all other members of the Society as per the Development Agreement will also be given to Defendants as per Development Agreement. 15. Interim Application (L) No. 39387 of 2025 is disposed in the above terms. 16. Liberty is granted to the Plaintiff to apply for withdrawal of the present Suit as requested by Mr. Singh.