Single tenant cannot stall redevelopment of dilapidated building, rules HC

Mumbai: The Bombay high court recently held that a tenant of a building at Hill Road in Bandra cannot stall the demolition of a dilapidated structure when the majority of tenants agreed to the demolition and vacated the structure in favour of redevelopment

Mumbai: The Bombay high court recently held that a tenant of a building at Hill Road in Bandra cannot stall the demolition of a dilapidated structure when the majority of tenants agreed to the demolition and vacated the structure in favour of redevelopment. The court directed the tenant to vacate the premises within two weeks as she was the sole occupant of the dilapidated structure and the developer had already offered a permanent alternate accommodation as per her demands.

Representative image (Praful Gangurde)

The division bench of justices R D Dhanuka and Kamal Khata while hearing the petition of the Shanti Bhavan tenant was informed by advocate Sunil Ahya that his client was aggrieved by the demolition notice issued by the BMC on April 13, 2022, and sought a direction to quash the demolition notice and refer the same to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the corporation.

According to the developer, who wants to redevelop the property, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had issued a notice to the building owners in 2019 asking them to conduct a structural audit of the building. The owners got a report from a private auditor stating that the building was a C-1 category building and the same should be demolished.

However, four of the six tenants objected to the owner’s report and got their own structural audit done in which it was stated that the building was a C-2B category building and needed structural repairs.

In view of the contradicting reports, the BMC held a hearing of the owners and tenants in 2020 and referred the same to the TAC, which visited the site and opined that the building should be demolished. Thereafter, on April 13, 2022, the BMC issued the demolition notice based on the independent report of an auditor who was appointed jointly by the owners and tenants.

Advocate Ahya submitted that though seven weeks had lapsed since the notice was issued, the building had not collapsed and the developer appointed by the owner in connivance with the BMC had declared the building as C-1 category, hence the court should initiate an independent enquiry to ascertain how the building was illegally declared dilapidated.

Appearing for the developer, senior advocate Snehal Shah opposed the submissions of the petitioner and stated that after the demolition notice was issued, three of the six tenants had surrendered their rights and vacated their flats.

Negotiations were going on with two other tenants. Shah further submitted that the petitioner had been offered permanent alternate accommodation but the petitioner’s brother, who lives in the USA, had been demanding more than what other tenants were given.

The bench was also informed that though the petitioner had admitted that the building was in a dilapidated condition was not willing to vacate the flat and was the sole occupant of the building.

After hearing the submissions, the bench noted, “Out of 6 tenants, 3 have already surrendered their rights in favour of the developer insofar as flat nos.1, 2 and 5 are concerned, in respect of flat no 3 the developer already entered into a permanent alternate accommodation agreement. Negotiations are going on in respect of flat no.4. It is thus clear that the majority of the tenants have agreed to redevelopment. The petitioner being in minority cannot stall the redevelopment more particularly when the building is in a dilapidated condition. Even otherwise the petitioner has not disputed the status of the building as dilapidated, as is apparent on the record.”

The bench, therefore, dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to vacate the flat within two weeks, failing which the BMC could forcibly get the flat vacated with the assistance of the police.