SRA intended for public welfare, not for developers: HC

Mumbai: Noting that the Slum Rehabilitation Act, 1995 was meant for public welfare and not to serve developers, the Bombay high court directed two developers to pay transit arrears of around ₹11 crore to an SRA project in Jogeshwari or face termination

Mumbai: Noting that the Slum Rehabilitation Act, 1995 was meant for public welfare and not to serve developers, the Bombay high court directed two developers to pay transit arrears of around ₹11 crore to an SRA project in Jogeshwari or face termination.

HT Image

The order was passed by the HC while hearing a petition filed by Shree Sai Pawan SRA CHS Ltd claiming that the two developers involved in redevelopment of their society had not paid them transit rent since 2019.

The division bench of justice Gautam Patel and justice Neela Gokhale was informed by advocate Amogh Singh that out of the 300 members, who are eligible for flats in the project, 70 had been provided transit accommodation while the remaining 230 were to be provided transit rent. The developer had not paid the transit rent since 2019. The bench was informed that the work at the site had come to a standstill as the developers were locked in arbitration proceedings.

Singh submitted that as arrears of ₹11.20 crore towards the transit rent was pending and the developers should be directed to pay the same.

After hearing the submissions, the bench noted in its order passed on February 27, “This city is not for developers. The Slum Rehabilitation Act 1995 is not for developers. The Act is intended to serve a public welfare purpose. Developers are a means to that end.”

The bench further noted that the incentive floor space index offered to the developer was a consideration for their fulfilling obligations under the contract for rebuilding or rebuilding of rehabilitation structures and tenements both commercial and residential, but also the payment of transit rent in the meantime or the providing of habitable transit accommodation.

The bench continued that non-provision of the same would be in default of his obligation and would disentitle him to any of the benefits of the slum rehabilitation project, i.e., the free sale component as per the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.

Noting that the developers could not be allowed to take advantage of their own failure, the bench expected them to pay the arrears of the transit rent failing which the court would be forced to curtail their right to redevelop the project.

“If these developers want their rights to continue and to be preserved, they must demonstrate their bona fides. They must prove their sincerity. To seek equity, they must do equity,” the bench noted in its order and directed them to pay the arrears by March 3.