MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has ruled that tenants have limited rights and cannot dictate the nature of redevelopment to the owner. In the case of a Khar (West) building, where an “obstinate tenant” (HC’s words) was holding up redevelopment, the court directed the BMC to issue a commencement certificate for redevelopment. The owner, G M Heights, a limited liability partnership firm, had petitioned the HC.
“Tenancy rights cannot be stretched to such an extent that the course of redevelopment can be taken over by the tenants, so as to take away the basic corporeal rights of the owner of the property, to undertake redevelopment of the owner’s choice,” said an HC bench.
Rami Raja Chawl had 21 tenants and was demolished in 2021 after being declared dilapidated. The owner proposed a commercial structure, which a lone tenant said was legally impermissible.
Senior counsel GS Godbole, for the owner, said the BMC had accepted the proposal, and barring one, the other 20 tenants had no objection to a commercial building in the redevelopment plan. The tenant refused to give an NOC and did not sign the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement. BMC’s condition in 2021 was that the nod for actual construction was to be issued only after all tenants gave consent.
The HC ruled that the only rights of the tenants were to be provided with an alternative accommodation of an equivalent area occupied by them before the building was demolished. The tenant’s counsel was unable to show “any embargo on the owner, to undertake redevelopment, different from the nature of the existing building”, said the HC, which had recently clarified BMC cannot demand 100% consent in cases of dangerous buildings and consent of 50-70% tenants would suffice.
“Tenancy rights cannot be stretched to such an extent that the course of redevelopment can be taken over by the tenants, so as to take away the basic corporeal rights of the owner of the property, to undertake redevelopment of the owner’s choice,” said an HC bench.
Rami Raja Chawl had 21 tenants and was demolished in 2021 after being declared dilapidated. The owner proposed a commercial structure, which a lone tenant said was legally impermissible.
Senior counsel GS Godbole, for the owner, said the BMC had accepted the proposal, and barring one, the other 20 tenants had no objection to a commercial building in the redevelopment plan. The tenant refused to give an NOC and did not sign the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement. BMC’s condition in 2021 was that the nod for actual construction was to be issued only after all tenants gave consent.
The HC ruled that the only rights of the tenants were to be provided with an alternative accommodation of an equivalent area occupied by them before the building was demolished. The tenant’s counsel was unable to show “any embargo on the owner, to undertake redevelopment, different from the nature of the existing building”, said the HC, which had recently clarified BMC cannot demand 100% consent in cases of dangerous buildings and consent of 50-70% tenants would suffice.