Bombay High Court
Yusuf Nazarali Adenwala And 17 Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 22 March, 2024
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
918-OSWP-3649-2023.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3649 OF 2023
Yusuf Nazarali Adenwala & Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
Mr Khan Farhana, i/b Memon & Co, for the Petitioners.
Ms Shreya Shah, i/b PG Lad, for Respondents Nos 2 & 3-MHADA.
Mr Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate, with Aditya Joshi, i/b Sumit
Kothari, for Respondent No 7.
Mr Rohan Cama, with Bharat L Jain, i/b Bharat Jain, for
Respondent No 15.
Ms Vrushali Kabre, AGP, with Himanshu Takke, AGP, for the
Respondent-State.
SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE CORAM G.S. Patel &
Digitally signed by
SHEPHALI SANJAY
MORMARE
Kamal Khata, JJ.
Date: 2024.03.26 10:19:08 +0530 DATED: 22nd March 2024 PC:-
1. There is a property at Girgaon. It is not very large, only 295 sq mts. It is at Grant Road. On this stands a building. Respondents Nos 11 to 14 (the Vahalia family) own the land. They do not own the building. There are many owners of the building, but the 7th Respondent (Chouhan) represented by Mr Godbole claims to have 70% ownership of the building.Page 1 of 4
22nd March 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2024 12:44:39 ::: 918-OSWP-3649-2023.DOC
2. But the building is no more. It has been brought down and all the tenants including all the Petitioners have been evacuated.
3. These tenants come to Court muddling questions of given ownership of land and building and joining to this Petition, one Aasma Infra-Con LLP and Navshrajan Developers, a duo that claims to have development rights or at least consent from all the tenants. On this basis the tenants seek the following reliefs:
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order to issue Writ of Mandamus or such other writ, order, direction in the nature of Mandamus against the Respondent No.2 and 3 to allot and deliver to the Petitioners each a transit accommodation in SBUT project in South Mumbai and in the meantime not to pull down/demolish the said Building viz. Adenwala Building at plot of land bearing C.T.S. No.1143 of Girgaon Division, admeasuring 294.32 sq mtrs., Pavwala Street, Grant Road, Mumbai - 400 004 or any part thereof;
(b) That this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to order to issue Writ of Mandamus or such other writ, order, direction in the nature of Mandamus against Respondent No.2 and 3 to expeditiously issue their 'No Objection' to the redevelopment of said Building described in prayer clause-(a) above, in favour of said Developer (Aasma Infra-
con LLP and Navsrajan Developers) appointed by the 70% of tenants/occupants of the said Building described in prayer clause-(a) above upon receipt of valid and proper proposal of redevelopment from the appointed Developer. IN ALTERNATE That this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to order to issue Writ of Mandamus or such other writ, order, direction in the nature of Mandamus against Respondent No. 1 to 3 to Page 2 of 4 22nd March 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2024 12:44:39 ::: 918-OSWP-3649-2023.DOC acquire the said Land and the said Building described in prayer clause-(a) above for redevelopment thereof under the provisions of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Amendment) Bill, 2020 and/or under section 91 r/w. Section 92 of MHADA Act.
(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, the Respondents No. 1 to 3, their agents, servants and person claiming through and under them be restrained by an order an injunction of this Hon'ble Court from pulling down/dismantling/ demolishing the said Building described in prayer clause-(a) above, or any part thereof."
4. There is a fundamental problem with this Petition. There is no question of Aasma and Navshrajan having any rights or having the consent of the tenants because there is no concept yet of the tenants giving any consent. This is because nobody has given notice under Section 79-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1977 ("MHADA Act") to Chouhan or his fellow owners of the building. If there is a Section 79A notice (and there is said to be one) it was addressed only to the Vahalias who do not own the building but are lessors of the land. Section 79-A(i)(a) requires a notice to be issued to the owner or landlord of the cessed building. There is no such notice.
5. Mr Godbole for Chouhan states that a development proposal has been submitted to the Repair Board in February 2024 and is pending consideration. The owners do not need consent of the tenants to redevelop the building. The suggestion itself is absurd because it would mean that tenants have ownership rights in the Page 3 of 4 22nd March 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2024 12:44:39 ::: 918-OSWP-3649-2023.DOC building. The question of consent of tenants arises in entirely different circumstances. It is best that Mr Cama's clients, the developer duo, stay out of this for the time being and most certainly they would be well advised not to invest further in what might turn out to be a terrible misadventure on their part.
6. The prayers from the Petitioner are also somewhat fantastic because they have now dragged in the Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust ("SBUT") without even making it a party to the Petition. We do not understand how this site at Pavwala Street, Grant Road is at all linked to the cluster redevelopment being done by SBUT in 'C' Ward. Grant Road, at least as last advised, is in 'D' Ward.
7. The Repair Board is represented before us. It is required to take up Chouhan's application for development/redevelopment and process it in accordance with law and subject to all other compliances at the earliest possible and in any event by 19th April 2024.
8. List the matter high on board on 22nd April 2024.
(Kamal Khata, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 4 of 4 22nd March 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2024 12:44:39 :::