JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, heard finally.

2. A short question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings is, whether tenants (in the present case one tenant) can dictate the nature of the redevelopment to be undertaken by the landlord, by insisting that the redevelopment of the building necessarily should be, as the building originally stood, prior to its demolition. Illustratively residential premises should be redeveloped only as residential and not as commercial or vice-versa.

3. The petitioner, which is a Limited Liability Partnership firm, is the owner of land bearing Final Plot No. 128B of TPS Bandra BIII in F Ward of CTS Bandra, admeasuring 714.90 square meters. Earlier, there was a building standing on said plot of land, which had 21 tenants. Certain part of the existing building had commercial tenements and partly residential tenements. The building had become dilapidated. A notice was issued by the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short ‘Municipal Corporation’) to the owners/occupants under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short ‘MMC Act’). The building ultimately was demolished in August 2021.

4. The petitioner, in these circumstances, proposed to undertake redevelopment so as to construct a commercial building, which according to the petitioner was permissible as per rules. The petitioner intends to undertake such redevelopment under the provisions of Regulation 33(19) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulation for Greater Mumbai, 2034 (for short ‘DCPR 2034’).

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had accordingly submitted a proposal to the Municipal Corporation and accepting such proposal, an Intimation of Disapproval (for short ‘IOD’) dated 11 November 2021 came to be issued in favour of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that except for respondent no.3, the other 20 tenants have no objection for the redevelopment being undertaken by the petitioner as per the proposal submitted by the petitioner to the respondent- Municipal Corporation. It is only respondent no.3 who is now objecting to the redevelopment as proposed by the petitioner, for which an IOD has already been issued as noted above. The next step for the petitioner is to obtain a commencement certificate, however, as respondent no.3 is objecting and is refusing to enter into a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (for short ‘PAAA’), and/or not issuing an NOC to the petitioner, the Municipal Corporation considering condition nos. 7 and 8 of the IOD has refused to grant a commencement certificate to the petitioner. Conditions nos. 7 and 8 of the IOD are required to be noted, which read thus :

“7. That the Registered Agreement with the existing tenant along with the list will not be submitted before C.C.

8. That the consent letter from the existing tenants for the proposed additions/alternations in their tenement will not submitted before C.C. That the consent letter from the existing tenants for the proposed additions/alterations in their tenement will not be submitted before C.C.”

6. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court primarily on the ground that respondent no.3 who is only one tenant out of the majority of the 21 tenants, cannot obstruct the redevelopment in such condition as inserted in the IOD by the Municipal Corporation is arbitrary. The petitioner, hence, has prayed for following reliefs:

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records and proceedings pertaining to the present case in respect of the development project of the Petitioner and after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof, the said impugned Order/letter dated 3.11.2022 bearing No. Dy.Ch.E/BP/6989/ 7288/ WS-I passed/issued by the Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner annexed as Exhibit T hereto, be quashed and set aside;

(a-1) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to decl