JUDGMENT :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. These are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, concerning redevelopment or construction of new buildings. The existing buildings were demolished, after being declared dilapidated and dangerous, and were facing action for their demolition under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,1888 (for short ‘the MMC Act’).

2. A short question of contemporary importance, which arises for determination in these petitions is as to whether the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (for short ‘MCGM’) would be justified in imposing a condition that the owner/landlord who intends to undertake redevelopment of a demolished building, is required to obtain 100% consent of all the erstwhile tenants/occupants, by submitting to the MCGM, ‘permanent alternate accommodation agreements’, executed with all the tenants, as a condition for issuance of a commencement certificate (CC), stated to be mandated by Clause 1.15 of the “Guidelines issued by the MCGM for declaring private and municipal buildings as ‘C-1’ category (Dangerous, Unsafe)” (for short “the 2018 Guidelines”) and a similar consequential condition in the Intimation of Disapproval (IOD).

3. For convenience, we refer to the facts in the first Petition (Raj M. Ahuja & Anr. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors.).

4. The petitioners are owners of land bearing Survey No.113(part) and Survey No.114(part) and bearing CTS No.89/A, 89/A 1 to 13 of Village Pahadi Eksar, Taluka Goregaon, situated at Jay Prakash Nagar Road No.2, Goregaon (East), Mumbai. There was an existing building on such land, having ground plus one upper floor known as ‘Madhu Estate’ having an industrial user. It housed 39 industrial units. There were 17 tenants on the ground floor. Respondent Nos. 3 to 9 are some of the tenants out of the 17 tenants.

5. It is not in dispute that on 22 July 2017, MCGM had issued a notice to the petitioners under Section 354, [Sec.354. Removal of structures, etc., which are in ruins or likely to fall] of the MMC Act. Also the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the MCGM had inspected the petitioners’ building and had declared the same to be dangerous falling within ‘C-1’ category. Consequent to such notice, the petitioners requested the occupants / tenants to vacate the subject building. On 26 December 2017 the MCGM had prepared a list of tenants/occupants/owners occupying the units, alongwith the carpet area statement, of each of the units, in the building, which forms part of the record of the MCGM. After all the formalities were completed, in December 2017, the MCGM demolished the building.

6. Out of the 39 units housed in the building, 22 units were on the first floor which were owned by the erstwhile owners of the building and some of which were let out on leave and licence to third parties. There is no dispute in regard to any rights being claimed by any third parties in respect of those 22 units. The remaining 17 units which were on the ground floor, were in occupation of the tenants. Out of said 17 units, two tenants surrendered their rights in favour of the petitioners. There is an eviction decree passed against four tenants, the proceedings in that regard are sub-judice before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. Out of the 17 units, in regard to 5 units the petitioners have entered into agreements/consent terms for permanent alternate accommodation. A suit for eviction has been filed by the petitioners against one of the tenants on the ground of sub-letting, which is pending before the Small Causes Court. Also, there are suits filed by the petitioners against the tenants in respect of 6 units, which are stated to be pending before the Small Causes Court. Thus, there are only 7 occupants (Respondent Nos.3 to 9) who are the disputing occupants, who are not ready and willing to enter into a permanent alternate accomm