Delay by few tenants significantly hurts other members’ right to redevelopment for no fault of theirs: HC
The plea by 122 tenants stated that the December 9, 2018, meeting of the society for redevelopment was not properly called and the minutes of the said meeting were 'fraudulent.'
3 min read
The bench noted that the Development Control Regulations ,1991, require the consent of 70% of the tenants for redevelopment, which do not include PAPs or slum dwellers. (Express photo by Prashant Nadkar/File)The Bombay High Court recently observed that a delay by tenants at no cost ‘significantly hurts’ the society and its members whose rights to redevelopment are prolonged despite any fault of theirs.
While making these observations, the bench dismissed ‘misconceived’ petitions by tenants of Mehta building and Rasool Jiwa Compound near Jacob Circle at Mumbai Central who sought from the court to set aside a Letter of Intent (LOI) for the project and BMC’s order, dismissing their claim of illegality in the verification of the consent for the project.
On April 5, a division bench of Justices Gautam S Patel and Justice Kamal R Khata passed an order in two writ petitions, including one by 122 tenants and another by 17 who claimed to be commercial tenants of the two buildings. The development project covered both the plots and deals with principal municipal tenants, Project Affected Persons (“PAPs”) and slum encroachers. The bench noted that the petitions are “clearly an abuse of the process of the HC and a mischievous and thoroughly motivated invocation of its writ jurisdiction.”
“Literally, these petitioners have been persuaded to take a gamble with writ petitions. That a delay hurts a developer is obvious. But a delay by a few tenants, at no cost, also significantly hurts the society and other members, whose rights to re-development are delayed for no fault of theirs,” the bench noted.
The high court, while hearing the pleas, said it would ordinarily have imposed costs on the petitioners, but refrained to do so because it believed that petitioners have been thoroughly wrongly advised and many of them may not even have been explained the consequences of what is being said or argued in their names.
The bench noted that all the principal tenants are members of the proposed Jagruti Cooperative housing society and the Development Control Regulations ,1991, require the consent of 70% of the tenants for redevelopment, which do not include PAPs or slum dwellers.
The plea by 122 tenants stated that the December 9, 2018, meeting of the society for redevelopment was not properly called and the minutes of the said meeting were ‘fraudulent.’ They claimed that the principal tenants gave their consent for the reconstruction but then purportedly withdrew the same.
“The demand that the development should be according to some other pattern cannot be accepted,” the bench noted.
It also observed that petitioners were seeking judicial review of the past order which dealt with demand made by some persons for re-verification of consent or for fresh consents, therefore, such a review was ‘impermissible’ in writ jurisdiction.
It also noted that the petitioners are ‘really only the front or the mouthpiece for the rival developer called D’serve Exim Pvt Ltd and sought cancellation of the LOI issued to Triumph Urban Developers Pvt Ltd.’
“There is now no question of reserving liberty (to petitioners) to file civil proceedings,” the bench said and rejected the petitions.
You May Like
