SONU BABU BHAMBID & ORS. versus DREAM DEVELOPERS & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 1176 · Decided: 21-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 1176 
A 
SONU BABU BHAMBID & ORS. 
• 
v. 
DREAM DEVELOPERS & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4583 of 2009) 
B 
JULY 21, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
INJUNCTION: 
c 
Interim injunction - Relevant factors to be taken into 
consideration - Explained - HELD: When a court exercises 
its discretionary jurisdiction, appellate court would be slow to 
interfere except for sufficient and cogent reasons - In the 
instant case, trial court on consideration of materials on record 
D refused interim injunction - High Court rightly declined to 
interfere with - Urban Development. 
URBAN DEVELOPMENT: 
Town planning - Rehabilitation of slum dwellers -
E Agreement between slum dwellers and developers to 
construct residential accommodation for slum dwellers 
provided they produce eligibility certificate and the plot 
encroached upon by them is declared as slum area - Slum 
dwellers failed to get required certificate - HELD: Grant of 
F eligibility certificate was sine qua non for enforcement of 
agreement and in its absence, agreement came to an end -
Assuming that modification of nature of construction was 
permissible, in absence of modification order, statutory 
interdict gets attracted and developer could not be permitted 
G to raise construction for residential purpose - Development 
Control Regulations 1991 - Regulation 57(4)(c). 
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: 
Or. 41 - r. 27 - Production of additional evidence in 
H 
1176 
SONU BABU BHAMBID & ORS. v. DREAM 
1177 
DEVELOPERS & ORS. 
appellate court - HELO: Filing of documents as additional A 
evidence must be in terms of Or. 41 r. 27 - Supreme Court 
Rules, 1966. 
The appellants, (slum dwellers) and/or their 
predecessors-in-interest had encroached upon a B 
property bearing CTS No.61. An agreement dated 
26.6.2005 was entered into between the parties with 
regard to rehabilitation of the appellants on CTS No.82. 
~ 
One of the conditions of the agreement was that the 
appellants would obtain eligibility certificate from the C 
competent authority. However, the respondents started 
construction of commercial building on Survey No.82. 
The appellants filed a suit in the City Civil Court for a 
declaration inter alia that the plaintiffs were entitled to be 
provided a flat each of carpet area of 225 sq.ft. on CTS 
No.82. An interim injunction was prayed that pending final D 
disposal of the suit, construction activities on CTS No.82 
be stayed. The trial court held that as the appellant failed 
to obtain essentiality certificate and CTS no.61 was not 
declared as slum area, the question of taking recourse of 
the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme did not arise. The appeal 
E 
filed by the slum dwellers having been dismissed by the 
High Court, they filed the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A court before passing an order of 
injunction must take into consideration three relevant 
factors, viz., prima facie case, balance of convenience and 
irreparable injury.Furthermore, when a court exercises 
F 
its discretionary jurisdiction, the appellate court would be 
slow to interfere therewith unless sufficient and cogent G 
reasons exist therefor. [Para 16 and 17] [1184-E; 1185-C] 
Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Bombay 
Environmental Action Group and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 61; 
Mandali ranganna & Ors. etc. v. T. Ramachandra and Ors. 
H 
1178 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.CR. 
A (2008) 11 SCC 1; Shridevi and Anr. v. Muralidhar and Anr. 
(2007) 12 SCALE 234 and Manjunath Anandappa v. 
Tammanasa (2003) 10 SCC 390, referred to. 
1.2. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that for the 
8 purpose of attracting the rehabilitation scheme the area 
in question should be declared as a slum area. It is only 
for the said purpose, the appellants were required to 
obtain eligibility certificate. Grant of eligibility certificate 
was, thus, sine qua non for enforcement of the 
C agreement dated 26.06.2005 and consent was merely one 
of the terms of the contract. Clause 3 of the said 
agreement categorically provides that in case the 
occupants fail to get such certificate, the agreement 
would ipso facto come to an end and they would have no 
right against the party of the other part. In absence of any 
D eligibility certificate, C.T.S. No.61 could not be declared 
to be a slum area and, thus, the question of the scheme 
of rehabilitation and/or relocation of the occupants 
thereof would not arise. The High Court cannot be said 
to have committed an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.