The court upheld the status of structures as contravening under DCPR, affirming that separate tenancy claims must be resolved in civil court, allowing NOCs for redevelopment.

Judgment:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, Petitions are taken up for hearing.

2. The Petitions arise out of grant of benefits of redevelopment of tenanted structures. Late Vitthal Narvekar was a tenant in respect of Room No. 13 located at C. B. Dhuruwadi, Final Plot No. 840, TPS-V of Mahim Division, Dadar, Mumbai. Apparently, the tenanted structure bearing Room No. 13 was earlier in three parts viz. main room, verandah and toilet block. Vitthal Narvekar has three sons: Lawoo, Dilip and Ankush. It appears that after Vitthal’s death, the three sons occupied the above three parts of the tenanted structure. While Lawoo continued residence in main room, it appears that Ankush converted the verandah into a room and started residing therein whereas Dilip converted toilet block into a residential room. The Municipal Corporation has recognised the structures of Ankush and Dilip as contravening structures in respect of neighboring Final Plot No. 751-752 under which Ankush and Dilip would receive permanent alternate accommodations, whereas Final Plot No. 840, on which Lawoo’s structure is located, is not taken up for redevelopment as of now. Grant of benefit of permanent alternate accommodations to brothers Ankush and Dilip has caused heartburn for Lawoo, who has orchestrated cancellation/withholding of NOCs issued by MCGM by orders dated 14 May 2021, which are subject matter of challenge in the Petitions.

3. By these Petitions, Petitioners challenge the Orders dated 14 May 2021, by which the Respondent-Municipal Corporation has kept on hold No Objection Certificate of Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4339 of 2022 and has cancelled the No Objection Certificate of Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5196 of 2022.

4. Brief factual narration as prologue to the judgment would be necessary. This is a typical fight amongst three brothers in respect of their competing claims to rights resulting out of redevelopment of structures in their occupation. There is one tenanted structure identified as Room No.13 in which Late Vitthal Narvekar was a tenant. After father’s death, Lawoo Vitthal Narvekar claims tenancy therein. Said Room No.13 is divided into three parts viz. main room, its verandah and a toilet block. According to Lawoo, all three sub parts are part of singular and composite structure numbered as Room No.13 and Lawoo claims exclusive tenancy rights in respect of the entire composite structure of Room No.13. Contrary to the Lawoo’s claim, his two brothers, Dilip and Ankush claim that three sub parts are independent structures. The middle portion, referred to as verandah by Lawoo, is in fact a room in Ankush’s possession. Similarly, the structure referred to by Lawoo as toilet block is again an independent room in Dilip’s possession.

5. This disputed position amongst Lawoo on one hand and Dilip and Ankush on the other, about the singular structure or three separate structures has a direct bearing on the redevelopment of the same under the provisions of Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034 (DCPR). The main room in occupation of Lawoo (referred to as Room No.13) is located in final plot No. 840. The middle structure (referred to as Verandah by Lawoo), which is in Ankush’s possession partly falls in Final Plot No.840 and partly in Final Plot Nos.751-752. The third structure (referred to as toilet by Lawoo), being in possession of Dilip, falls in final plot No.751-752 with some portion of it protruding in final plot No.753. Under DCPR, every structure, which falls in one or more Final Plots under Town Planning Scheme are treated as contravening structures. Regulation 33(12)(A) deals with redevelopment of contravening structures included in the final plot of a town planning scheme. Therefore, the structures in which rights are claimed by Ankush and Dilip (on account of those structures jutting out in another final plot) have been treated as contrave