Stranded by builder, 47 S’cruz hsg soc members move court

The petitioners have sought directions to the BMC and the developer to clear these dues, including transit rent, corpus fund, shifting charges, brokerage and interest, calculated up to July 2026

MUMBAI: Nearly three years after the BMC declared Kailash Prabhat Cooperative Housing Society in Santacruz (east) dangerous and dilapidated, and over two years after its seven buildings were demolished ahead of redevelopment, 47 displaced members are still awaiting transit rent and rehabilitation agreements from the developer. The residents have approached both the City Civil Court and the Bombay High Court seeking ₹4.76 crore in outstanding dues.

iMumbai, India - November 13, 2026: A view of the Kailash Parbat CHS redevelopment project at BKC in Mumbai, India, on Friday, November 13, 2026. (Photo by Satish Bate / Hindustan Times) (Hindustan Times)

The petitioners have sought directions to the BMC and the developer to clear these dues, including transit rent, corpus fund, shifting charges, brokerage and interest, calculated up to July 2026.

Kailash Prabhat CHS comprises 122 flats and ten shops in seven buildings. Moiz Shaikh, one of the petitioners, said the BMC had placed the buildings in the C1 category in February 2023. “We trusted Galaxy Developers, which was appointed, and the managing committee, and around 45 residents vacated their homes in May 2023.”

However, Shaikh alleges, the developer paid rent only to committee members and their relatives. “We were told to return to our old homes,” he says. “The developer’s financial preparedness was never checked. He wanted to bring in a joint developer and we were left in the lurch.”

The petition, filed on July 23 in the Dindoshi court and another August 12 in the high court, also challenges the BMC’s decision to sanction the redevelopment under Regulation 33(7)(B) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR), 2034. It contends that since the society’s buildings were declared dilapidated and dangerous under the C-1 category, the redevelopment should have been processed under Regulation 33(7)(A).

According to the petition, the society and the developer entered into a development agreement in October 2022. Subsequently, the BMC issued notices under Sections 353-B and 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, declaring all three wings of the society unsafe. The buildings were eventually demolished in August 2024.

However, while the developer began paying transit rent to select members and subsequently to other members, the petitioners were allegedly excluded. The petitioners have relied on documents which acknowledged that 55 members had vacated their flats in 2023, executed registered agreements for alternative accommodation and were receiving rent. They have also submitted documents to support the classification of their buildings as C-1.

Despite this, the BMC issued an Intimation of Disapproval (IOD), sanctioning the redevelopment under Regulation 33(7)(B). The petitioners contend that this is legally invalid and the BMC should have invoked Regulation 33(7)(A).

“A second builder was brought in through a partnership, but he too did not pay us the rent or corpus. The building was forcibly declared C-1 and there is no Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement either. At least 47 residents like me are stranded without rent or a development agreement,” said Parvez Abdul Majeed, who shifted with his family to Panvel after the buildings were demolished.

According to the petitioners’ calculations, outstanding transit rent alone amounts to ₹2.71 crore, while the total claim, including other rehabilitation-related dues and interest, amounts to ₹4.76 crore up to July 2026.

This was not the first time the residents have moved court.over the redevelopment dispute. The first case was filed in the high court in October 2024, challenging the development agreement, but it was disposed of.

Next, they filed a petition before the Dindoshi court in July 2026 over non-payment of rent. Subsequently, Mehmood Ahmed approached the high court in August 2026 over the non-payment of rent and other redevelopment-related issues, including the development agreement, corpus and carpet area.

The petitioners have sought the court’s direction to the developer to clear arrears with 18% annual interest and continue paying monthly transit rent until permanent alternative accommodation is handed over with an occupation certificate. They also want the developer to execute individual Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAAs), specifying carpet area, amenities and the completion timeline.

They have also urged the court to restrain the BMC from granting further permissions to the developer until the outstanding rent is cleared and individual rehabilitation agreements are registered. The Galaxy Developers spokesperson was unavailable for comment.