MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has set aside repair permissions granted by the Mumbai civic chief in May this year to tenants of a Worli building and held that when its owner wishes to redevelop the structure, the tenants cannot come in the way just because a few of them believe it can be repaired.
In a dispute between tenants and owner of the building situated on a plot along Dr Annie Besant Road next to the charity commissioner’s office, the bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata said if the owner does not exercise his rights and acts in a manner that is “to the prejudice of the tenants”, they are not without a remedy.But their remedy is “limited” to the option of reconstruction, of having “the building repaired or rebuilt to its original condition.”
“This limited right of a tenant cannot be expanded to eclipse- indeed, obliterate-the full rights of a property owner willing to undertake re-development,” said the HC. The owner-landlord, AG Pawar petitioned the HC this year. His counsel Mayur Khandeparkar said he wished to redevelop, but would protect occupants and provide them permanent ownership premises in the redeveloped building. The owner challenged a civic engineer’s recommendation of carrying out repairs without evacuating tenants. This recommendation was based on a structural assessment report and BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation’s decision granting permission for repairs.
The tenants, through senior counsel Girish Godbole and advocate Joel Carlos, argued that the building can be repaired since it had a C-2 tag (which means it is repairable).
The HC made it clear that it was “not directing redevelopment in any particular form.” The HC said the question of law is “whether, merely on the basis of a structural assessment, a building tenant can wholly eclipse the valuable rights of development associated with ownership of a property by a property owner. It is well settled that ownership of a movable property carries with it several rights including the right to enjoy the fruits of development of that property to the fullest possible extent. If these rights are to be curtailed, this can only be done in accordance with law and without any form of expropriation.”
The HC, however, clarified that if, within a reasonable time, the owner does not submit a development proposal to BMCthe tenants would be entitled to submit a proposal for reconstruction.
Godbole sought a stay on the HC order. The bench rejected the plea saying the tenants were not providing security against potential losses to the owner that a delay would inevitably entail, “nor for the evident loss” should the building collapse. The court said the tenants are seeking to “dictate the terms” of tenancy “beyond anything the law contemplates” and to “expand tenancy rights to the prejudice of the property owner-without taking the slightest steps to acquire those ownership rights.”
In a dispute between tenants and owner of the building situated on a plot along Dr Annie Besant Road next to the charity commissioner’s office, the bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata said if the owner does not exercise his rights and acts in a manner that is “to the prejudice of the tenants”, they are not without a remedy.But their remedy is “limited” to the option of reconstruction, of having “the building repaired or rebuilt to its original condition.”
“This limited right of a tenant cannot be expanded to eclipse- indeed, obliterate-the full rights of a property owner willing to undertake re-development,” said the HC. The owner-landlord, AG Pawar petitioned the HC this year. His counsel Mayur Khandeparkar said he wished to redevelop, but would protect occupants and provide them permanent ownership premises in the redeveloped building. The owner challenged a civic engineer’s recommendation of carrying out repairs without evacuating tenants. This recommendation was based on a structural assessment report and BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation’s decision granting permission for repairs.
The tenants, through senior counsel Girish Godbole and advocate Joel Carlos, argued that the building can be repaired since it had a C-2 tag (which means it is repairable).
The HC made it clear that it was “not directing redevelopment in any particular form.” The HC said the question of law is “whether, merely on the basis of a structural assessment, a building tenant can wholly eclipse the valuable rights of development associated with ownership of a property by a property owner. It is well settled that ownership of a movable property carries with it several rights including the right to enjoy the fruits of development of that property to the fullest possible extent. If these rights are to be curtailed, this can only be done in accordance with law and without any form of expropriation.”
The HC, however, clarified that if, within a reasonable time, the owner does not submit a development proposal to BMCthe tenants would be entitled to submit a proposal for reconstruction.
Godbole sought a stay on the HC order. The bench rejected the plea saying the tenants were not providing security against potential losses to the owner that a delay would inevitably entail, “nor for the evident loss” should the building collapse. The court said the tenants are seeking to “dictate the terms” of tenancy “beyond anything the law contemplates” and to “expand tenancy rights to the prejudice of the property owner-without taking the slightest steps to acquire those ownership rights.”
