Tenants explore all legal options

SC upheld a Bombay High Court (HC) decision of August 9,2012,to not stay the redevelopment.

“We will file a review petition after SC vacation. We will also file a writ in HC. We are seeking advice from our lawyers since we want to explore every legal option,” said Akhil Kumar,member of one of the five families opposing the redevelopment.

The tenants,however,have an uphill task as SC had observed in its March 23 judgment that a rival builder was behind the opposition to the redevelopment.

“Based on documents placed on record,it is clear the offer of Rs 75 crore made by tenant-members was in fact made by a rival builder,” SC said.

“When a rival builder made a similar offer to the tenants,no objections were raised. Such conduct is against the spirit of cooperative movement,” HC had observed.

HC,while declining to stay the redevelopment,ordered that the tenants could be evicted for two months after the case dismissal. However,the decision thereafter would be open to the society and the developer,it said.

In January 2012,while the case was still in HC,Sumer Associates reportedly tried to demolish a bungalow. The tenants protested and a stop-work notice was issued.

Resident of the bungalow Villa Pande,however,reportedly told neighbours she had moved out three months ago giving rights to the builder.

The litigation began in 2009,a year after Sumer Associates acquired the land.

Tenant-members denied connection to any rival builder. “We have not contacted any builder and have not been paid to obstruct this scheme. We have lived here all our lives and this is where we thought we would retire. Law says to redevelop a land,there should be an agreement with tenants but we have not received any such document,” said Lucy D’sa of Wellingdon Catholic Society.

In July last year,BMC published a list of proposed heritage structures. In September,municipal commissioner Sitaram Kunte said redevelopment of 300 structures could continue as the list was still a draft that required approval from the state urban development department (UDD).

A fortnight later,the state-appointed Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee issued a notice to the civic chief reminding him such decisions could not be made without consulting it.

Almost a year has gone by but neither UDD nor BMC has taken a decisive step to hold public hearings on the 2,000-plus suggestions and objections to the list submitted by citizens.

alison.saldanha@expressindia.com