The Bombay High Court in the case Anandrao G Pawar v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors., observed and has held that the tenants cannot stretch their limited right to reconstruct or repair a dilapidated building in order to obstruct the property owner or the landlord from redeveloping his property.
The Division bench comprising of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata in the case observed while ruling in favor of the petitioner or landlord, thus, the court set aside the no-objection certificate, NOC and subsequent repair permissions granted to tenants w.r.t. a building in Worli.
The court in the case observed that the petitioner or owner was desirous of redeveloping the property and was willing to re-accommodate tenants free of cost on basis of ownership. He in the case was entitled to fully enjoy the fruits of development of that property to the fullest possible extent.
Adding to it, the court stated that when an owner does not exercise his rights, and stands idly by doing nothing to the prejudice of the tenants, the tenants are not without a remedy. Thus, they in the case can have the building repaired or rebuilt to its original condition, but no more.
The court in the case stated that this limited right of a tenant cannot be expanded to eclipse indeed, obliterate the full rights of a property owner willing to undertake redevelopment.
In the present case, the landlord approached the court wherein seeking to quash of the NOC issued by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, MCGM to his tenants to carry out structural repairs to the subject building.
He in the case urged that he was interested in redeveloping the structure, which was constructed in the 1960s and the tenants in the case averred that carrying out repairs to the building would be sufficient and they were willing in order to pay for the same.
The court stated that the structural assessment report of the Technical Advisory Committee categorized the building as C-2A, meaning that it required repairs without tenants are being evacuated.
It has also been claimed by the landlord that the building fell under the uninhabitable C-1 category and it needs to be redeveloped.
The counsel appearing for the landlord highlighted before the court that the landlord was willing to re-accommodate all tenants on an ownership basis at the time of redevelopment.
On the other hand, it has been submitted by the respondent-tenants that the redevelopment was not on the cards when they sought repair permissions.
Moreover, the building was in the C-2A category, so it could not be redeveloped till it was being declared as C1.
Therefore, the main question before the bench was whether which is merely based on a structural assessment, the tenant of a building could wholly eclipse the valuable rights of development associated with a landlord’s ownership of a property as it is stated under Section 499 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
The bench in the case observed and has remarked that even if a building is in good order and condition, but the owner still desires to redevelop it, if the tenants cannot restrain the owner from redevelopment merely because they believe that repair would be sufficient.
The court in the case stated that there is a redevelopment proposal and the broad terms of the building are set out, whether or not these are acceptable to the tenants is immaterial. Thus, they are being re-accommodated, and their tenancies are being converted free of cost to ownership.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the landlord does not submit a proposal for development to the MCGM within a reasonable period of time, tenants or an association of the tenants would be entitled to submit a proposal for reconstruction.
The counsel, Advocate Mayur Khandeparkar with Advocate Abhijit Patel appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Advocate Pooja Yadav appeared for MCGM.
The counsel, Senior Counsel Girish S Godbole with Joel Carlos and Leena Shah represented the respondent Nos. 7 to 12.