Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G. S. KULKARNI, AARTI SATHE
Dipika Tanavde – Appellant
Versus
Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board Maharashtra Housing & Area Redevelopment Authority – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tenants of old structure facing eviction. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. arguments regarding jurisdiction and noc scope. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. court's assessment of compliance and tenant rights. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. interpretation of jurisdiction under the mhad act. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. order for rejection of the petition. (Para 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, heard finally.
3. Respondent No.4 – M/s Hill Park Properties Pvt. Ltd. is the owner of the land as also of these two buildings (for short, ‘the owner’). The owner intended to undertake redevelopment as both these buildings had become old and dilapidated. There are total 62 tenements in both the buildings. Admittedly, out of 62 tenants/tenements, except the petitioners who are 15 in number, all the tenants have vacated their respective tenements and/or have accepted the redevelopment being undertaken by the owners.
“Sub:- Redevelopment of property at F.P.No.1120 of TPS-IV, Mahim Divn, Building No.7-B, bearing Cess No.GS/2953 (4-5), situated at Murari Ghag Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 Known as ‘Irani Chawl’.”
“ With
Tenants of non-cessed buildings cannot resist eviction under Maharashtra Housing Act based on perceived rights for larger accommodations unless provided by law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirements of Section 95-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, and the need to comply with the terms and con....
Redevelopment scheme – Eviction of tenant - Agreement with the Petitioners regarding alternate permanent rehab premises proposed to be allotted on tenancy basis.
Tenants retain their rights to occupy and reconstruct a demolished tenanted building, and property owners have legal obligations to redevelop or reconstruct under municipal law, which the MCGM is emp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of parties to comply with court directions and the serious consequences for non-compliance.
The court held that notices issued under Section 79-A of the MHADA Act were invalid due to lack of proper declaration of the building as dangerous and failure to follow procedural requirements.
The court ruled that notices issued under Section 79-A of the MHADA Act are invalid if the building is not officially declared dangerous, violating due process and natural justice.
Land Acquisition - Compulsory acquisition of land - Quash of order – Acquiescence would be a conduct where a party is sitting by when another is invading his rights and acquiescence must be such as t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
