Introduction
In Ritesh Haldar & Anr. v. Elite Housing LLP & Ors. (Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) Nos. 14486 and 15542 of 2025), the Bombay High Court has reiterated that redevelopment cannot be used as a surrogate for eviction. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that a person in possession of premises under redevelopment is entitled to transit rent and possession of the redeveloped unit, regardless of ownership claims. The Court partially modified the impugned order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, balancing redevelopment entitlements between the recorded owner and the occupant.

Background
The dispute concerned Flat No. 12 in ‘Spectrum’ CHS, Khar (W), Mumbai, which was occupied by one Leena Rohitesh Haldar, wife of Mr. Rohitesh Haldar. Ritesh Haldar claimed ownership and had initiated eviction proceedings describing Leena as a gratuitous licensee. Following a redevelopment agreement dated 31st July 2024 between the Society and Elite Housing LLP, the developer sought to take possession for demolition and execution of a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA).

In an order dated 16th April 2025 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the learned Single Judge had directed that the PAAA be executed in the name of the Court Receiver, with transit rent and the redeveloped flat to be handed over to Leena. Ritesh and Rohitesh challenged this arrangement under Section 37, claiming ownership and entitlement to redevelopment benefits.

High Court’s Findings
The Division Bench upheld the principle that redevelopment cannot override possessory rights, especially in absence of an eviction decree. It relied on the decisions in Vipul Fatehchand Shah v. Nav Samir CHS and Harshad Shah v. Labharti Realties, both of which hold that transit rent and reallocated flats must go to the party in possession of the original premises, irrespective of title disputes.

The Court rejected the execution of the PAAA in the name of the Court Receiver, noting that Ritesh was the recorded member in the Society's register and that no other party had filed proceedings challenging his title. However, it maintained the protection granted to Leena, directing that she be paid transit rent and be handed over the redeveloped flat upon completion, subject to the outcome of the eviction suit.

Conclusion
This judgment reinforces the legal position that possession governs redevelopment entitlements under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Owners cannot circumvent due process by using redevelopment as a means to dispossess occupants. By balancing ownership records with possessory protection, the Bombay High Court has once again emphasised that rights under redevelopment flow not from title alone, but from the status quo of possession¹.

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar