Bombay HC seeks BMC’s response to plea by occupants of ‘dilapidated’ building which houses iconic eatery ‘Jimmy Boy’ to repair structure

The building housed 37 units including 11 law firms or offices, Jimmy Boy restaurant on ground floor and other commercial establishments. The BMC’s Disaster Control Cell had vacated the building on June 21 citing “urgent situation.”

A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor on August 13 passed an order on a plea by Vikas Premises Co-operative Society Ltd, seeking modification in the July 2 order to allow the occupants to repair or strengthen the subject building. Pending final disposal of the application, the petitioner society sought a stay on implementation of notices issued by BMC and not to take any steps to demolish the building.

The high court on July 2 dismissed society’s plea against BMC notices stating that situation had gone “completely out of hand” and the court would “permit the law to take its own course.” The court had said “even persons occupying adjoining buildings, passers-by on the busy road have rights not to get affected in any manner by a building collapse.”

After the BMC had opposed request by society to allow entry to its members to remove their belongings, the HC had last month clarified that it would be at their “own risk”  subject to civic body’s decision and without holding BMC or state authorities liable in case of collapse.

On Wednesday, the occupants referred to a July 16 report by  Mahimtura Consultants Private Limited, which claimed that building was repairable and even while the said report classified it as C-1 (dilapidated and unsafe) category structure based on visual inspection, the private consultant suggested the repairs.

The petitioner society through senior advocate Milind Sathe argued that the “redevelopment of the building was virtually not possible” for various constraints including close proximity with Naval establishments which is likely to impede the development due to non-receipt of NOC from Naval authorities, and the litigation that the HC is flooded with. Moreover, the petitioner claimed that the development is in heritage precinct. Therefore “it would be most appropriate to structurally repair the building rather than redevelopment, which is not a practical possibility.”

Sathe also suggested that the court can appoint a committee of experts from IIT-Bombay to ascertain whether the building can be repaired.

“We passed an exhaustive judgment. We are at a serious stage…The corporation is consistent that it is a dangerous building. It should not be that someone comes and wants to have committees from IIT because they can afford. There is some sanctity to our orders. We want the corporation is consistent in its stand. We want to know what is correct,” the judges orally remarked and sought BMC’s reply to interim application before the next hearing on August 20.

“In the meantime, the relief granted by this court vide judgment and order dated July 2, 2025 shall continue to operate,” the HC noted in its order.