JUDGMENT :

G.S.Kulkarni, J.

1. These are seven petitions in which common issues are raised by the petitioners, hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. This is yet another case whereby about seven tenants of the building in question, intend to stall the redevelopment to the prejudice of majority of the tenants who are out of their houses and awaiting redevelopment of a building, which came to be demolished being dilapidated. The ingenuity of the petitioners to raise issues under the Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 is what falls for consideration.

3. Writ Petition No. 2329 of 2019 is argued as the lead petition. The relevant facts are required to be noted:-

4. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a building ‘Haji Manzil’ situated on a Plot bearing CTS Nos. A/645M A/646 & A/647, Village Bandra-A at 91, Chinchpokli Road, Off Hill Road, Bandra (W.), Mumbai – 400 050 (for short, “the said building”).

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the building was constructed in the year 1968 which consists of 28 tenements. The said building is a structure of ground plus two floors. Respondent no.1-Swarna Highrise Constructions is the owner/landlord of the said building. Respondent no.1 is undertaking the redevelopment of the said building, as the same was dilapidated. The Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”) of the Municipal Corporation in its report dated 17 November, 2018 declared the said building as dilapidated/C-1 category and accordingly, it was ordered to be demolished.

6. It is not in dispute that at the time of filing of these petitions, all the tenants residing in the said building have vacated the said building without prejudice to their rights and contentions to have a temporary accommodation. It also appears to be not in dispute that vacating of these tenements by the tenants was in pursuance of notices issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short “MCGM”) under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (for short, “MMC Act”) which were issued between the period 11 April, 2018 to 07 August, 2018. In fact, one of the tenants had approached this Court in Writ Petition (L.) No. 3347 of 2018 assailing the notices issued under Section 354 of the MMC Act. Such petition came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 27 November, 2018. It is stated by the petitioners that there were further proceedings before the Supreme Court and in view of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition No. 32198 of 2018, the present petitions came to be filed.

7. The lead petitioner has averred that she was inducted as a tenant in respect of Room No.2, on the 2nd floor and her tenement is admeasuring 250 sq. ft. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no.1 intends to undertake redevelopment of the said building by utilizing the 2.7 Floor Space Index as per the Development Control and Promotion Regulation, 2034 (for short, “DCPR”) in force, which was noticed from the letter dated 02 September, 2016 of respondent no.1’s architect Shirish Sukhatme. The feasibility report of the architect, according to the petitioner, proceeds on the basis of respondent no.1 consuming the full development potential of 2.7 FSI on the said plot. As a part of the redevelopment being undertaken, it is the petitioner’s case that respondent no.1 had forwarded a draft Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (for short, “PAAA”) to the petitioner purporting to allot alternate accommodation admeasuring 300 sq. ft. in lieu of existing area of 250 sq. ft. as occupied by the petitioner. The petitioner had grievances in regard to the clauses of the PAAA.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that PAAA would not only entitle the petitioner to a permanent alternate accommodation of a minimum carpet area of 300 sq. ft., but in addition thereto, a benefit of fungible FSI whereunder the petitioner’s share would entitle her to a tenement admeasurin