Bombay High Court declares consent of all tenants not obligatory to redevelop dilapidated building

Bombay High Court declares consent of all tenants not obligatory to redevelop dilapidated building

Cites the Development Control and Promotions Regulation-2034 norms

The Bombay High Court has held that a developer can be allowed to overhaul a dilapidated building even if 51 to 70 percent of tenants are in agreement with the redevelopment plan.

In the Raj Ahuja vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai case, a division bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice RN Laddha said that as per the Development Control and Promotions Regulation-2034, there is no need to obtain the consent from all tenants in the building for such redevelopment.

It quashed the decision of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), which had asked the petitioner-developer to obtain consent from all the tenants for the redevelopment of a building in Goregaon.

The bench noted that the civic body had directed the developer to get the consent of 100 percent of tenants if it wanted the commencement certificate (CC) for the redevelopment.

The bench observed, "It is a settled position in law that the interest of the minority occupants or the tenants cannot be opposed to the interest of the majority occupants, as also such persons cannot foist on the owners a delay in commencement of the redevelopment work, resulting in the project cost being increased, which would be seriously prejudicial to the owners or the developers and above all, the majority of the occupants.”

The developer contended that by imposing such a condition, the civic body was prejudicing the rights and interests of the developers. Obtaining consent from 100 percent of tenants was not always possible and such a pre-condition was arbitrary.

When the MCGM said the pre-condition was imposed only to secure the interests of all the tenants, the bench referred to MCGM’s guidelines for declaring private and municipal buildings as the ‘C-1’ category (dangerous, unsafe) and DCPR-2034.

The court explained that if 51 to 70 percent of tenants consented to permanent alternate accommodation (PAA) offered by the owner or landlord, it would suffice and entitle the developer to secure a CC.

The bench added, "They cannot resist a PAA as offered by the owner to the majority of the tenants because it does not suit their requirements, or for some other reasons they are not agreeable to enter into a PAA. This would amount to a few tenants bringing the entire redevelopment to a standstill by not consenting to a PAA or by raising the dispute.”

instructed by Rajesh Sharma & Associates, senior advocate Ashish Kamat and advocates Mayur Khandeparkar, Pooja Kane-Kshirsagar, Jitendra Jain, Laxman Jain, Rohit Bamne, Yogesh Adhia, Rajesh Sharma, and Tehashree Paraz, appeared for the petitioners.

MCGM was represented by senior advocate Anil Sakhare and advocates Vandana Mahadik and Dharmesh Vyas.

Additional government pleader Sukanta Karmakar represented the state and advocate Amarendra Mishra appeared for the non-consenting tenants.