Mumbai: The entire redevelopment at the behest of minority tenants cannot be stalled, observed the Bombay High Court while dismissing separate petitions by seven tenants of Haji Manzil in Bandra West.
A division bench of Girish Kulkarini, RN Laddha, on May 4, dismissed the petitions observing: “This is a case that the petitioners intend to prejudice the interest of the majority of the tenants as also of the landlords. We are thus not inclined to accept such a request. It is accordingly rejected.”
The 1968 made building was demolished in 2020
Estella Fernandes and six other tenants of Haji Manzil building are opposing the redevelopment of the building by its landlord, Swarna Highrise Constructions. The building was constructed in 1968 and had 29 tenants. Following BMC notices, declaring the building dilapidated, it was demolished on January 4, 2020.
Except for the seven tenants, the remaining have vacated the premises and signed a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA).
Fernandes, who had a 250 sq ft tenement in the building contended that the landlord intends to use 2.7-floor space index (FSI) as per the Development Control and Promotion Regulation (DCPR) 2034.
Questioning the clauses of the PAAA, her counsel, senior advocate Anil Anturkar, argued that the PAAA would not only entitle Fernandes to a permanent alternate accommodation of a minimum carpet area of 300 sq ft; however, the benefit of fungible FSI should be made available to her which would entitle her to a tenement 405 sq ft. He submitted that the landlord is seeking benefits under the DCPR; however, it is not passing the benefits of the same to tenants.
On instructions, Anturkar said that they intend to continue staying as tenants and not acquire ownership flats in the redeveloped building.
IOD issued in 2015
Advocate for the landlord, Shailendra Kanetkar stated that they received Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) in 2015 itself; however, the project got delayed due to the non-operation of these tenants. The landlord has agreed to provide a tenement of an area of 300 sq ft plus 8% additional carpet area totalling 324 sq ft carpet area in the redeveloped premises.
The landlord also contended that the property has an approach road which is less than 9 metre and in view of the size of the plot and the plinth of the approach road, there are constraints on the vertical height of the building, hence respondent number 1 would not be in a position to give fungible compensatory area to any of the tenants.
The HC noted: “It is not possible to accept such contention of the minority members that only for their benefit the building plans are required to be changed and special adjustments are required to be made. This would disturb the entire redevelopment scheme.”
“In any event, once the petitioners have taken a stand that they intend to continue to possess the rights as tenants in the redeveloped premises, it would not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to dictate the course of redevelopment to respondent number 1 (landlord),” added the bench while dismissing the petitions.
Building constructed in 1968
Had 29 tenants initially
Seven tenants opposing Redvpt
Remaining tenants vacated
Redvpt at behest of minority tenants
Demolished on Jan 4, 2020
