'Dissenting Tenants Cannot Hold Up Redevelopment Of Dilapidated Byculla Building': Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court cleared the redevelopment of the dilapidated Issa Building in Byculla, ruling that a small group of dissenting occupants cannot stall a project backed by the majority. Of 83 occupants, 57 had signed Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements and surrendered possession. The court upheld MHADA’s eviction action under Section 95A.
The court allowed redevelopment of Issa Building after finding that most occupants had agreed to the housing project | AI Generated Image
Mumbai, October 7, 2026: The Bombay High Court has cleared the way for redevelopment of the dilapidated Issa Building in Byculla, holding that a handful of occupants cannot be permitted to stall a housing project supported by the majority of tenants, particularly when the structure poses a risk to life and safety.
A bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Gautam Ankhad dismissed petitions filed by a group of occupants challenging eviction notices issued by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) under Section 95A of the MHADA Act. The provision enables summary eviction of occupants who obstruct redevelopment schemes.
The 83-unit Issa Building at Madanpura comprises 63 residential and 20 commercial premises. The structure was declared dilapidated and proposed to be redeveloped under Regulation 33(7) of the DCPR 2034 by landowners Pudinawala Mohammed Rafique and Zainul Abedien Pudinawala.
Majority Occupants Back Redevelopment
Of the 83 occupants, 57 had executed Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAAs) and surrendered possession. The remaining occupants, including petitioner Javed Abdul Rashid Ansari, challenged eviction notices issued by MHADA’s executive engineer on August 12, 2026. They questioned the officer’s authority and alleged that the developer had failed to comply with conditions relating to corpus funds and rent agreements.
Advocate General Milind Sathe, appearing for MHADA, defended the action, submitting that Section 95A was specifically intended to prevent individual occupants from delaying redevelopment. He said the executive engineer had acted with due authorisation from the Chief Officer of the MHADA Board.
Building Safety Cited
Advocate Karl Tamboly, appearing for the developers, highlighted the condition of the building and the interests of the majority of occupants. “The building is dangerously dilapidated and poses a continuing risk to life,” he submitted, adding that only a small number of occupants were holding up the project.
Also Watch:
ALSO READ
The bench held that Section 95A provides a summary mechanism for expediting housing schemes and cannot be converted into a full-fledged civil trial. It also noted that the developer had deposited rent and corpus funds with MHADA after the petitioners refused to accept them.
Court Clears Way For Project
Accepting MHADA’s assurance that all conditions would be strictly enforced, the bench dismissed the petitions and paved the way for the redevelopment to proceed.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
RECENT STORIES
-
-
-
-
-