*Case Title*: Unique Shanti Developers LLP vs Jai Temple View Co-Operative Housing Society & Ors. Court: *High Court of Bombay* Date: November 29, 2022 Judge: Justice B. P. Colabawalla *Background of the Case:* The plaintiff, Unique Shanti Developers LLP, filed a suit seeking a declaration that the Development Agreement dated December 6, 2021, between them and Jai Temple View CHSL is legal, valid, and binding on all defendants. The Developer also sought directions for Defendants 2, 3, and 4 to vacate their respective flats and hand over vacant possession. *Key Disputes:* *Defendants 2 & 3: Argued that the Developer had not complied with the Development Agreement conditions, specifically:* 1. Failure to furnish a Bank Guarantee of ₹6 crore. 2. Non-payment of a ₹50 lakh security deposit to the Society. 3. Failure to create a mortgage on an unsold flat as additional security. 4. Lack of a solvency certificate. Defendant 4: Objected to the allocation of his new flat on the 3rd floor, while his current flat was on the 4th floor. *Court’s Findings and Orders:* 1. *Developer's Commitments:* The Developer assured the Court that they would fulfill their obligations (Bank Guarantee, security deposit, mortgage, etc.) by January 3, 2023. 2. *Vacating Orders:* Defendants 2, 3, and 4 were directed to vacate their flats by January 10, 2023, provided the Developer meets its obligations. 3. *Court Receiver Appointment:* If the Defendants fail to vacate, a Court Receiver will take physical possession of the flats, with police assistance if necessary. 4. *Transit Rent & Compensation:* The Developer must pay transit rent and hardship compensation as per the Development Agreement. 5. *Defendant 4’s Request*: The Court did not order the Developer to provide a 4th-floor flat but advised them to consider his request sympathetically. 6. *Heirship Issue (Defendant 4):* Since Flat No. 404 originally belonged to Defendant 4’s deceased father, any compensation or sale agreement must have consent from all legal heirs or a court order. *Final Decision:* The Interim Application was disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs. The digitally signed order was to be considered valid for execution. *This case highlights the legal complexities in redevelopment projects, especially developer obligations, tenant rights, and legal enforcement*.