Tenants can’t dictate terms of redevelopment: HC

Tenants cannot dictate terms or foist their choice of redevelopment on the landlord, if they are assured of rehabilitation tenements, the Bombay high court held, while dismissing the petitions filed by seven tenants of a building on Hill Road in Bandra West seeking additional area over and above what was being offered by the landlord

MUMBAI: Tenants cannot dictate terms or foist their choice of redevelopment on the landlord, if they are assured of rehabilitation tenements, the Bombay high court held, while dismissing the petitions filed by seven tenants of a building on Hill Road in Bandra West seeking additional area over and above what was being offered by the landlord.

HT Image

A division bench of justice GS Kulkarni and justice Kamal Khata, which was hearing the petitions on Thursday, said, “Once the landlord has guaranteed that the tenants would not be deprived of permanent alternate accommodation in lieu of their original premises, the tenants or occupants—whether minority or majority—would not have any legal rights to dictate and/or foist on the landlord the nature of the development to be undertaken by the landlord.”

“The tenants/occupants cannot assert any higher rights in relation to redevelopment, unless expressly provided by the law,” the bench said. The tenants cannot dictate their notions and any facet on the redevelopment, unless the law recognises such rights, the bench said, adding, “If such a right of the tenants/occupants is recognised, it is likely to bring a situation that the corporeal rights of the owners of the property would stand fully defeated.”

The landlord, Swarna Highrise Constructions, assured each tenant a permanent alternate accommodation in the newly-constructed building. Twenty-two of the 29 tenants had accepted the offer of 324 square feet tenements in lieu of their existing 250 square feet houses.

The minority group of seven members had, however, moved the HC contending that they were entitled to 35% of the fungible Floor Space Index (FSI) being utilised by the landlord, as provided in the Development Control Promotion Regulations 31(3) and 33(7)A). They contended that since this provision was made in the DCPR for the city, the BMC was duty-bound to ensure that the benefit of the fungible FSI was extended to the tenants.

The landlord, on the other hand, had expressed inability to provide the fungible FSI on account of height restrictions in the proposed building and that the majority of the tenants have already accepted the area being offered by them. The court accepted the landlord’s contention and dismissed the petitions.