The high court, in its order, states that when the authorities have cleared a redevelopment project, disputes of allotment of space must be settled between the developer and tenants
Owners of four shops at Pathak building, in Girgaum, disputed the unit allotments by the developer
In a trend-setting order concerning unit allotment disputes between developers and occupants in the cases of redevelopment, the Bombay HC has observed that courts cannot intervene in such matters and that the two parties have to come to an understanding.
ADVERTISEMENT
The high court made the observation while hearing a writ petition filed by four commercial shop owners from Girgaum in south Mumbai. They had sought a stay on the demolition of their shops, claiming injustice, with the developer allotting them less space on the ground floor and more on the first floor. The HC refused an interim relief and directed MHADA to take a final call.
The developer demolished the shops on Friday, October 21, as per the direction of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA).
The dispute
D R Developers, led by Vijay Jain and Vikas Jain, is undertaking the redevelopment of Annapurna Sadan, Prabhu Bhuvan and Pathak buildings located at V P Road and Ardeshir Dadi cross lane in Girgaum. Owners of shops at Pathak building disputed the unit allotments.
A ground-plus-3-floor structure, Pathak is being redeveloped into a ground plus 21 storied tower. It originally has 24 tenants/families and four commercial shop owners.
Also Read: Mumbai: Real estate developer dies by suicide by jumping off high-rise building
D R Developers received written consent of the 24 families, but not from the owners of the commercial shops (number 1, 2, 7 and 22). They were not happy with the allotment of more space on the first floor and little on the ground. They wanted more space on the ground floor, as they are in the business of selling heavy-duty metal pipes. They cited problems in transporting the heavy-duty products to the first floor.
Acting as per the MHADA Act, the developer demolished the top three floors, but couldn’t touch the shops without consent. Being the non-consenting occupants, the shop owners didn’t give consent even for the redevelopment, resulting in loss of time and finances to the developer.
The shop owners had moved the Court of Small Causes in early 2022, seeking a stay on the shops’ demolition stating that they were unhappy with the allotment. The court refused to grant any relief to the shop owners.
No relief in HC
Thereafter, the four shop owners filed a writ petition in the HC, where Justices S V Gangapurwala and R N Laddha refused to intervene. Passing an order on October 11, they held that it “would not be possible for the court in its writ jurisdiction to embark upon the investigation or enquiry as to how and in what manner the space would be allotted to petitioner in redeveloped project, and that it is for the petitioner and the developers to arrive at an arrangement”.
“It would not be within the domain of the court to discuss and decide about the area that can be allotted to petitioners on ground and first floors,” the bench added.
The bench directed MHADA to decide the application of the shop owners and take a final call.
MHADA’s Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), in its report on October 13, said, “The developer had submitted the plan approved by the BMC. As per the amended approved plan, six shops, society office, pump room, meter room, two lift parking and lobby are provided on the ground floor. The space is occupied by mandatory amenities and other occupier shops. The developer has given more area in the proposed building than certified by this office.”
The MBRRB directed the shop owners to vacate for demolition.
The shop owners, however, filed another writ petition in the high court, against MHADA’s directions. The HC bench on October 19 disposed of the matter stating, “No further orders are necessary in the matter”.
A crucial order
Vijay Jain, the developer, told mid-day, “The demands made by the tenants [shop owners] were exorbitant and malicious. Their unfair demands delayed the project by nine months. It has not only hampered us financially, but prolonged the 24 families’ wait to move into their new home. I feel there should be a clear policy regarding relocation and allotment of commercial shops in the redeveloped project, as it’s the major point of debate and argument in the city.”
Javed Khan Akhtar, lawyer representing the developer, said, “The HC’s order is important as far as the redevelopment in the city is concerned. There has to be some solution to the deadlock between developers and tenants when such a situation arises.”
Repeated calls to Advcate Natasha Keraspan Bhot, who represented the shop owners, went unanswered.
11
Day, in October, the Bombay high court passed the order
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
