Redevelopment of dilapidated building

Judgment dated 29.3.2023 of the High Court of Bombay-

Vexed problem objection of minority tenants to Redevelopment – Residential premises should be redeveloped only as residential and not as commercial or vice-versa – Can Redevelopment be withheld for objection of one out of 21 tenants even after offer of owner to provide PAA in commercial building on ownership basis – Can a tenant having limited rights dictate to the owner on the nature of redevelopment – Approach of Tenant is unreasonable  – Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034 – 

The petitioner is the Limited Liability Partnership Firm and owner of the land at Bandra.   There was building “Ramji Raja Chawl” consisting partly of residential and partly commercial tenements.  The building had become dilapidated and demolished in August, 2021. 

The petitioner has proposed to construct a commercial building as per Regulation 33(19) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulation for Greater Mumbai, 2034. 

ON 11.11.2021, the Corporation, after accepting the redevelopment proposal, had issued Intimation of Disapproval to the petitioner.  Condition Nos.7 and 8 of IOD require consent letter of the existing tenants for grant of commencement certificate. 

Out of 21 tenants, the respondent no.3 alone had objection to the redevelopment as commercial building.  The respondent no.3 had refused to execute Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement or to issue NOC to the petitioner. 

The Corporation had refused to grant commencement certificate for want of consent of respondent no.3.   As a result, the petitioner filed the writ petition. 

Held that the offer of the petition to provide permanent alternate accommodation on ownership basis in commercial building as offered to other 20 tenants, was not accepted by the respondent no.3. 

It was noted that the owner had offered to pay monetary compensation and also filed an affidavit to earmark / reserve two commercial premises on tenancy basis subject to the rights and contentions of the petitioner. 

Considering the above facts, it was held that the approach of the respondent no.3 is most unreasonable and adamant to say the least, the respondent no.3 as tenant has limited right and cannot dictate terms to the owner or foist or dominate  as to the nature of re-development and there was no challenge to the OID or further commencement certificate.  The writ petition was allowed directing the Corporation to issue Commencement Certificate. 

The judgment of Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in W.P.No.5130 of 2022 dt 20.3.2023 in Raj M. Ahuja case was relied on. 

Note: Redevelopment is essential in view of large number of dilapidated buildings in Mumbai endangering human life.  The consent of tenants, although essential for redevelopment, is posing vexed problem and creating vexed questions in number of cases.  There has to be balance of rights in redevelopment of dilapidated buildings.    Let us hope that the Corporation will consider the observations and findings of the Hon’ble Courts and suitably amend the Regulations to provide for consent letter of 55% tenants / occupants for redevelopment as sufficient for grant of commencement certificate as is case of cooperative housing societies. 

G.M.Heights LLP Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others – Writ Petition No.5302 of 2022.