The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by 15 tenants of Irani Chawl in Prabhadevi resisting eviction, clearing the final hurdle for its redevelopment. The court said their opposition — based on a demand for 45 sq ft extra space in new flats — was “mischievous and wholly untenable,” and directed them to vacate within four weeks.
HC Bench Terms Tenants’ Demand Baseless
A bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a plea by tenants of Irani Chawl, which was built before 1940. The plot also houses a cessed building constructed in 1959. Both are owned by M/s Hill Park Properties Pvt. Ltd., which is redeveloping the land under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR), 2034.
A cessed building is a property that pays a cess or tax, which serves as a repair fund for its maintenance. These buildings are primarily located in South Mumbai and were often constructed before 1940. They are regulated under the Bombay Rent Control Act and are maintained by private landlords.
47 Tenants Have Vacated; 15 Still Refused
Of the 62 tenements in both structures, 47 tenants have already vacated and accepted permanent alternate accommodation in a newly constructed rehabilitation building. Only 15 tenants — all from the non-cessed structure — refused to vacate, arguing that their new flats measured 405 sq ft instead of 450 sq ft, as given to tenants of the adjoining cessed building.
Rejecting this argument, the bench said the petitioners’ claim lacked any legal basis. “They seek an enhanced area of 45 sq. ft. in an already constructed rehabilitation building without any legal right to such assertion,” the court noted. “Such approach of the petitioners, being asserted at the advanced stage of the project, is not only mischievous, but wholly untenable.”
Court: Tenants Already Getting Twice Their Current Space
The court emphasised that the tenants, currently occupying units of 162–170 sq ft, were being offered ownership flats nearly twice that size. It further held that the MHADA was well within its powers to pass eviction orders under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (MHAD) Act, even for non-cessed structures, since the redevelopment covered the entire plot housing both buildings.
“Accepting the petitioners’ contention would result in an absurdity, defeating the statutory scheme pertaining to redevelopment,” the bench said, adding that the tenants had acquiesced in the NOCs granted by MHADA years ago.
Tenants Cannot Dictate Redevelopment Terms: Court
Citing an earlier judgment in a similar case, the court reiterated that tenants cannot dictate the terms of redevelopment once alternate housing is guaranteed. “It cannot be accepted to be any proposition of law that the rights of the owners to undertake development depend on the dictates of the tenants,” the bench observed.
Dismissing the petition, the court refused to extend interim protection and granted the tenants four weeks to vacate. “We are not inclined to extend the protection... as it is causing serious prejudice to the redevelopment,” the judges concluded.
