HC paves the way for redevelopment of dilapidated building in Worli

The bench said even if the building is in sound condition, the landlord is not precluded from redeveloping the property and enjoying the benefits of his ownership only because some tenants believe that the building can be repaired

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has paved the way for the redevelopment of a dilapidated building in Worli, which was upheld due to a dispute between the landlord and the tenants. The tenants of the Sheth Govindrao Smruti Building were opposed to the redevelopment and claimed that the building’s condition was repairable and did not require to be redeveloped.

heth Govindrao Smruti Building, next to Charity Commissioner's office, Anie Besant Road, Worli. (Bhushan Koyande/HT Photo)

The division bench of justice Gautam Patel and justice Kamal Khata struck down the petition filed by Anandrao Pawar, the owner of the building, challenging the May 24, 2023, decision of the Municipal Commissioner, who granted permission to repair the building, as sought by the tenants, but however, said that the tenants were not prejudiced in any manner by the redevelopment and therefore had no reason to oppose the redevelopment.

The bench said even if the building is in sound condition, the landlord is not precluded from redeveloping the property and enjoying the benefits of his ownership only because some tenants believe that the building can be repaired. “It is well settled that ownership of an immovable property has several rights, including the right to enjoy the fruits of development of that property to the fullest possible extent. If these rights are to be curtailed, this can only be done by law and without any form of expropriation,” the bench said.

“If, however, the landlord of a tenanted building does absolutely nothing at all and allows it simply to go to ruin or even to collapse, the tenants are not without a remedy,” the bench added, clarifying that there are legal provisions both in the Maharashtra Rent Act as also the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act which protect tenancy rights of the occupants.

While the landlord claimed that the building was extremely dilapidated and in the dangerous category, the tenants maintained that the building could be repaired, and claimed that they had the necessary funds required to undertake the repairs without seeking reimbursement from the landlord. They added that they collected the money for getting the building repaired also because the landlord had no concrete proposal for redevelopment of the building.

In Shet Govidrao Smruti Building’s case, the court said, now there is a concrete redevelopment proposal put forth by the landlord, and broad terms of the development have been finalised. “Whether or not these (terms) are acceptable to the tenants is immaterial. They are being re-accommodated, and their tenancies are being converted free of cost to ownership,” the bench added.