Rustomjee Crown residents move court, question builder’s role

Rustomjee Crown comprises three highrise buildings – Towers A, B and C – which have three-, four- and five-bedroom apartments. The complex has 372 apartment owners in Towers A and B, both 53-storey buildings with four flats per floor. The foyer configuration exists in nearly 95% of the apartments in Towers A and B

MUMBAI: Residents of Rustomjee Crown, the luxury residential project in Prabhadevi, have moved the Bombay High Court against the developer following the demolition of foyer areas in their apartments, by the BMC last week. They ask how hundreds of homeowners could have independently committed the same alleged municipal violation when the spaces were sold, documented and fitted out as part of their homes by the developer.

Mumbai, India. Aug 24, 2026 - The Rustomjee Crown Tower, located in Prabhadevi, Mumbai, BMC demolished an encroachment area in Tower A. Mumbai, India. Aug 24, 2026. (Photo by Raju Shinde/HT Photo) (Raju Shinde)

Around 140 flat owners, represented by 246 plaintiffs, are challenging the BMC action of August 24, which is scheduled to continue for a month.

Rustomjee Crown comprises three highrise buildings – Towers A, B and C – which have three-, four- and five-bedroom apartments. The complex has 372 apartment owners in Towers A and B, both 53-storey buildings with four flats per floor. The foyer configuration exists in nearly 95% of the apartments in Towers A and B.

The BMC has issued notices to the first batch of 186 flats and has already demolished eight foyers in 5-BHK apartments. The 4-BHK apartments, measuring 2,000 sq ft, have foyers of 180-185 sq ft, while the 5-BHK apartments, measuring 2,800-3,000 sq ft, have foyers of nearly 550 sq ft.

Residents say their documents describe the apartment area including a separate, private foyer area, with the net usable area calculated by adding the two. They claim the purchase consideration, stamp duty and registration charges were paid on the combined area.

A resident of Tower A alleged that the sanctioned plan attached to her registered sale agreement differs from the sanctioned plan subsequently submitted by the developer to the BMC. “We have been duped by the builder,” she said.

Further supporting their argument, residents say the foyer floor is the same as that of the apartment but different from the common lobby floor. The areas are enclosed by doors that are the entrance to their flats; the foyer air-conditioning is connected to their individual apartments and residents pay electricity bills for them.

Residents also point to the apartment costing sheet, which separately identifies the RERA carpet area, foyer area and net usable area before arriving at the apartment cost. They argue that this indicates the private foyer was expressly identified in the commercial documentation used for the sale.

Residents also point out that the BMC inspected Towers A and B before issuing occupation certificates (OC) in 2025. Civic officials allegedly did not object to the foyers at the time.

They say the issue arose when the developer sought an OC for Tower C, when the BMC raised the issue of excess FSI, allegedly consumed by the foyers. The developer claimed they were common foyers, which is why the BMC wanted them demolished, residents say.

They also claim they were asked to issue letters authorising Rustomjee representatives to represent them before the BMC. “When the first notice was issued, the builder assured us it would be sorted out with the BMC. Every flat owner then issued a letter of authority on behalf of the developer. Thereafter, further notices were collected by the developer from the BMC without informing residents, they claim.

Rustomjee Group said the Prabhadevi project was developed according to plans sanctioned and approvals granted by the competent authorities and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The company said the project had received requisite approvals, including the occupation certificate (OC).

“We have just been served with a copy of the suit instituted against certain parties in relation to matters concerning the project. The contents of the suit are presently being examined and Rustomjee is obtaining appropriate legal advice in relation thereto,” the company spokesperson said.

“Rustomjee is clear that there has been no violation or non-compliance on its part. The proceedings, at first impression, appear to be misconceived and are being examined accordingly,” the spokesperson said.

Since the matter is before the court, the company said it could not comment on the merits of the allegations. “We have complete confidence in the legality, approvals and compliance of Rustomjee Crown and will take all necessary steps to protect the interests and rights of the company and its stakeholders,” the spokesperson said.