Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Sai Auto Parts vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 March, 2023
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS 1815-1816 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos 8624-8625 of 2020)
M/s Sai Auto Parts & Ors … Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors … Respondents
ORDER
1 Leave granted.
2 The seven appellants are tenants of certain commercial premises situated in Part
A of a building constructed on Nazul plot No 139/2, known as ‘Khaparde Wada’, Rajkamal Chowk, Amravati. The building is stated to have been purchased in 2010 by respondent nos 4 to 9. The appellants claim to have been in possession much prior to 2010 as tenants.
3 On 6 August 2015, a notice was issued to the appellants calling upon them to remove themselves on the ground that the structure has become dilapidated.
The appellants have stated that they moved the High Court in a writ petition which is disposed of on the ground that the initial notice stood withdrawn together with all consequential notices.
Signature Not Verified 4 Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMARThereafter, a notice was issued on 10 May 2019 calling upon the appellants to ARORA Date: 2023.03.24 13:23:33 IST Reason:
2vacate the premises. The petition was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated 7 August 2019.
5 A review petition was then instituted before the High Court which was dismissed on 13 June 2020. The High Court has held that it was not sitting in appeal over the validity of the notice which was issued by the Municipal Corporation and hence declined to interfere with the notice which was issued under Section 264(1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act 1949. 6 While issuing notice in these proceedings, this Court had noted the submission of the appellants that as a consequence of the notice that was issued under Section 264, long standing tenants would be dis-housed without any provision being made for their rehabilitation by the landlord in the premises which may be reconstructed at the site. Hence, it was urged that by this method, protection of the rent control legislation will be short-circuited.
7 In that context, it has been urged that the provisions of Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999, more particularly clauses (i), (j) and (k) make specific provisions for a situation where the premises have to be vacated on account of different eventualities. Sub-sections 6 and 7 of the legislation make specific provisions for enforcing the protection that is extended to tenants. 8 During the course of hearing, Mr Sunil Murarka, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has placed on the record copies of the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Maharashtra 2020. The Regulations apply to building activities and development work on lands within the jurisdiction of all 3 Planning Authorities and Regional Plan areas except the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
9 Regulation 7.6 is extracted below :
“7.6 REDEVELOPMENT OF OLD DILAPIDATED/ DANGEROUS BUILDINGS Reconstruction / Redevelopment in whole or in part of any building which has ceased to exist in consequence of accidental fire / natural collapse or demolition for the reasons of the same having been declared dangerous or dilapidated or unsafe by or under a lawful order of the Authority or building having age of more than 30 years, shall be allowed subject to following conditions.
7.6.1 Redevelopment of multi-dwelling buildings of owner / society.
i) FSI allowed for redevelopment shall be FSI of existing authorized building and 10%incentive FSI shall be allowed on the FSI, TDR, premium FSI etc. consumed in the existing building. This shall be subject to maximum building potential mentioned in Regulation No.6.1 or 6.3, as the case may be. However, in case of buildings belonging to EWS / LIG group, 10% incentive FSI or 10 sq.m. built-up area per tenement, whichever is more, shall be allowed as incentive FSI.
Such incentive FSI shall not be applicable for redevelopment of existing bunglow.
ii) In cases where carpet area occupied by residential tenement in the existing building is less than the carpet area of 27.87 sq.m. then such tenement shall be entitled for minimum carpet area of 27.87 sq.m. and difference of these areas shall be allowed as additional FSI without any premium.
7.6.2 Redevelopment of tenanted buildings
i) The FSI allowed for redevelopment of building having protected tenants under the relevant provisions of law, shall be FSI permissible under Regulation No.6.1 or 6.3,or the FSI consumed by the existing authorized building including TDR, premium FSI etc., whichever is more. (Such TDR, Premium FSI etc. utilised in existing building shall be treated as a basic FSI for redevelopment.) In addition to this, 50% incentive FSI of the 4 rehab area required for rehabilitation of tenants, shall be allowed.
Provided that rehab area shall be the authorisedly utilised area or 27.87 sq.m. carpet area per tenement whichever is more. In case of nonresidential occupier the area to be given in the reconstructed building shall be equivalent to the area occupied in the old building. Provided that, where such building is partly self-occupied by the owners, then entitlement of such partly area shall be governed by the provisions mentioned in Regulation No.7.6.1 above.
Provided further that, if the existing authorised built up area and incentive thereon as stated above is less than maximum building potential mentioned in Regulation No. 6.1 or 6.3, as the case may be, then society may avail premium FSI / TDR upto maximum building potential.
ii) All the eligible tenants of the old building shall be re-
accommodated in the redeveloped building.
iii) In case of fire gutted buildings, the conditions of more than 30 years age of buildings shall not be applicable.
Note:- (applicable for Regulation No.7.6.1 & 7.6.2)
1) For the purpose of deciding authenticity of the structure if the approved plans of existing structure are not available, the Authority shall consider other evidences such as Assessment Record or City Survey Record or Sanad.
2) The new building may be permitted to be reconstructed in pursuance of an agreement to be executed on stamp paper by at least 51% of the landlord/ occupants in the original building, within the meaning of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rents Control Act, 1947 or Apartment Act and its related provision and in such agreement provision for accommodation for all occupants in the new building on agreed terms shall be made and a copy of such agreement shall be deposited with the Planning Authority before commencement or undertaking reconstruction of the new buildings.
3) An amount as may be decided by the Government shall be paid by the Owner/Developer/ Society as additional Development Cess for the built up area over and above the Base FSI. A corpus fund as decided by the Authority is to be created by the Developer which will take care of the maintenance of the building for a period of 10 years.” 5 10 The Municipal Corporation of Amravati has filed IA No 182268 of 2022 which, inter alia, annexes copies of the guidelines framed by the Amravati Municipal Corporation in regard to municipal and private buildings which are declared as dangerous or unsafe. These guidelines were framed on 11 November 2022.
Clauses 5 and 6 of the guidelines are extracted below :
“5 If it is found after due notice that the building(s) is in a highly dangerous or in dilapidated condition, then in that event, the Corporation shall also make a list of the names of the tenants and/or occupiers in the said building and the carpet area of the premises in their respective occupation and possession including the floor at which the same has been occupied. 6 A copy of such list will be furnished to the landlord and/or owner/builder of the said building. The Corporation thereafter, will issue a notice under section 264 of the said Act calling upon such tenants and/or occupiers to vacate the said premises and if such notice under section 264 of the said Act has already been issued, then in that event the Corporation will give 7 days' notice to such tenants/occupiers, copies whereof will be furnished to the landlord for vacating the said building(s). If such tenant and/or occupier is not available, the Corporation shall affix such notice or Letter of Evacuation on any part of such premises.” Clause 15 of the guidelines provides as follows :
“15. In case privately owned buildings are demolished by the Corporation in exercise of power under section 264, then the Corporation shall, while granting sanction of redevelopment, impose a condition in IOD (Intimation of Disapproval) that no Commencement Certificate will be issued under section 45 of the MRTP Act, 1966 unless and until an Agreement either providing a Permanent Alternate Accommodation in a newly constructed building or a settlement is arrived at by and between the tenants and/or occupiers and the landlord in respect of the said demolished premises, is filed with the Corporation at the earliest.” 6
11 In view of the above developments which have taken place, the tenants who would be liable to be dis-housed as a result of the demolition would be entitled to the protection of the unified regulations and the guidelines which have been framed by the Municipal Corporation. We order and direct accordingly. Hence, Amravati Municipal Corporation shall while implementing the notice which was issued under Section 264 take due steps to ensure that all the protections which are made available to the tenants in the reconstructed building are duly extended to them in letter and spirit.
12 In view of the Unified Regulations and the guidelines which have been issued by the Amravati Municipal Corporation. The apprehension which was expressed before this Court at the initial stage emanating from the notice that was issued under Section 264 will now stand duly assuaged.
13 The Municipal Corporation shall take all necessary steps to ensure due compliance with its duties and functions as noted above so that the rights and protections available to the tenants are duly protected.
14. The owners of the building shall take necessary steps to comply with their obligations in regard to rehousing of the tenants in the reconstructed premises.
15 In the event that any further directions are necessary towards the implementation of the present order, it is open to the appellants to move the High Court of Judicature at Bombay which shall issue suitable directions in that regard.
16 The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
717 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
…...…...….......………………....…CJI.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] …...…...….......………………....…..J. [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha] …...…...….......………………....…..J. [J B Pardiwala] New Delhi;
March 20, 2023
GKA
8
ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.1 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8624-8625/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-08-2019 in WP No. 3651/2019 30-06-2020 in MCAR No. 945/2019 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay At Nagpur) M/S SAI AUTO PARTS & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 182268/2022 - APPLICATION FOR VACATION OF INTERIM ORDER IA No. 62077/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 135484/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 62078/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 62044/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 35506/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 182269/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No.62042/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ ANNEXURES IA No. 62079/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES) Date : 20-03-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sunil Murarka, Adv.
Mr. Satyajit A Desai, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv.
Mr. Gajanan N Tirthkar, Adv.
Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Samrat Shinde, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
9M/S. Black & White Solicitors, AOR Mr. Suhaskumar Kadam, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Gharote, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Ghare, Adv.
Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Leave granted.
2 The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
3 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)