Bombay high court paves the way for revamp of old south Mumbai buildingUpdated: Jan 03, 2018 00:22 IST
The Bombay high court recently paved the way for the redevelopment of Alimohammed Mansion, a building near Novelty Cinema at Lamington Road, which had collapsed a decade back, resulting in death of two persons.
The redevelopment of the building had been held up primarily because of a bitter legal battle between NL Lookmanji Mithaiwala Pvt Ltd, which occupied two shops at the ground floor of the building, and its owner, Pervez Raisi. Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay high court recently dismissed an execution proceeding taken out by the sweet shop against the landlord, paving the way for the redevelopment of the building.
The sweet shop had sought monthly rent of Rs60,000 from the landlord in accordance with the consent terms recorded by the parties earlier. Justice Patel rejected the claim, noting that the amount was payable on the sweet shop after the two tenements on ground floor of Alimohammed Mansion vacated the premises, which they never did as such.
“The building having collapsed, it cannot now be said that the petitioner “vacated” the premises,” said justice Patel, adding, “To hold that it did would necessarily imply several things.”
The judge noted that there was no voluntary act of quitting the premises, delivering the same to the landlord in tangible form, and that required the shops to be in existence. The fact remained that the sweet shop owner’s possession came to an end owing to collapse of the building in June 2007.
Raisi claimed that the building had become dilapidated and required to be vacated and pulled down, pursuant to notices issued by the MHADA and the Brihanmumbai municipal corporation. The sweet shop owners maintained that the building was repairable, though old, and they hence refused to vacate the building, although all other tenants had left their respective premises.
The judge not only rejected the execution application, but also imposed a cost of Rs5 lakh on NL Lookmanji Mithaiwala for “the manner in which it chose to conduct itself” so far as the litigation surrounding Alimohammed Mansion was concerned.