Commercial Use without OC – Bombay HC Says No Relief, No Excuse

The petitioner had executed lease dated 23.2.2024 in favour of JK Bank in respect of shop no.2 in building no.5 of Panchratna Cooperative Housing Society, Nehru Nagar, Kurla (E), Mumbai.

However, by the order dated 7.1.2025, the petitioner and/or his assignee to vacate the subject premises in 48 hours, failing which, MHADA would seal the said shop on the ground that the commercial use was started without occupation certificate.

The contention of the petitioner that the possession was given by the Developer does not absolve him of the basic obligation to ensure lawful occupation.   A person engaged in business cannot feign ignorance of the fundamental requirement of an OC for occupation and commercial use.

Matters are aggravated by the fact that a public bank has commenced its branch in such premises.   The officers of the Bank owed a duty of diligence to verify statutory compliances including OC and fire NOC to open a branch.   Having failed to do so, the petitioner or the Bank cannot invoke natural justice to prolong unlawful occupation or claim indulgence on the footing of public inconvenience of its own making.  

For nine months after the impugned order, no steps were taken to vacate the premises.  Instead ad-interim order was used as a shield to continue a non-compliant occupation.

No relief in writ petition would be warranted where the substantive and continuing illegality is incontrovertible and poses public-safety risks.

The petitioner occupied and commercially exploited the premises without OC and then used the Court’s ad-interim protection to perpetuate that illegality for months.   No equitable relief is merited.

The exemplary costs of Rs.50,00,000/- was imposed on the petitioner to be paid to the PM Cares fund.

Judgment dated 17.10.2025 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.1107 of 2025 (OS) of Bharat Keshavji Chheda  Vs.   The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and others