An occupancy certificate should only be issued when the building is ready for occupation, including the provision of basic amenities such as water supply.

JUDGMENT

1. The Writ Petitioner initially raised several grievances. Principal among these was that there was no drinking water supply to the building in question and yet occupancy certificates had been issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ('MCGM'). The Petitioner also said that the flat allotted to him, Flat No C-501, as permanent alternate accommodation was in no sense fit for human occupation. Other works in the building/project itself were also incomplete. We considered this in our order of 17th August 2022. For context and to reiterate the issues that were to the mind of the court we reproduce the order of 17th August 2022 below:

1. It is entirely possible that the state of affairs reflected in this Writ Petition is symptomatic of all development and redevelopment in this city.

2. The project in question is something called Integrated 'Arya' at village Kirol, Narayan Nagar, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai 400 086. The Petitioner is concerned with one flat. We are told that this is flat C-501, i.e., flat No. 501 on the fifth floor of Wing 'C'. This is not a free sale building but is a rehab building to which the Petitioner is entitled. That is undisputed. It is also undisputed that the Petitioner is presently in transit accommodation being paid for and provided by the 3rd Respondent, Integrated Spaces Limited.

3. The building owner/developer claims that five of the six buildings in this project, including Wing 'C', with which we are concerned, are 'complete' and 'ready for occupation'. We are told that 30 persons are already in occupation and have taken up their respective tenements.

4. The reality is entirely different. Annexed to the Petition from page 317 at Exhibit 'L' are photographs said to be of 31st May 2022. We see unfinished flooring, exposed wiring, lifts that are in no sense ready, raw concrete slabs, staircases without hand rails, water-logging and more. Particularly astonishing are the photographs at pages 317, 319, 320, 321, 322, 325, 327, 328 and 329. This building is in no sense ready for occupation - at least not by human beings.

5. There is another set of photographs tendered by Mr Joshi for the 3rd Respondent. It shows a completed fa?ade. But these photographs have no date. It is impossible to identify which of the six buildings we are being shown. We say this because from this very compilation when we pointed out that the photographs at pages 9, 10, 14, 15 and 16 did not show any sign of readiness, we were told that these are photographs of some other building. When a flat occupant comes to court and says that despite promises his flat has not been made available on time, there is little point in showing us photographs of stack parking in the basement, a matter presently of monumental irrelevance.

6. On 12th August 2022 we passed the following order:

''1. Mr Joshi on behalf of Respondent No. 3 states that the redeveloped building called 'Integrated Arya' is ready in all respects. There is a residential accommodation to which the Petitioner is entitled and of which he is at liberty to take possession. Mr Joshi contends that the building is ready in all respects and has an Occupation Certificate.

2. The Petitioner is at present in transit accommodation. This has been provided by Mr Joshi's client.

3. We permit Mr Saraogi's client, the Petitioner, to take possession of his allotted Unit No. C-501 in the redeveloped building on a without prejudice and no-equities basis. We are not expecting him on the eve of a fourday weekend to vacate his present transit accommodation. Mr Saraogi states that the redeveloped unit does not have municipal water supply. Mr Joshi maintains that all facilities including a lift etc have been provided.

4. We require Mr Sagar Patil for the MCGM to confirm whether there is a functioning water supply and whether a full or part Occupation Certificate has been issued. An Occupation Certificate is annexed to the Petition at page 330. The reason we are asking Mr Saraogi to check is that it