Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The petitioner, in these circumstances, proposed to undertake redevelopment so as to construct a commercial building, which according to the petitioner was permissible as per rules. The petitioner intends to undertake such redevelopment under the provisions of Regulation 33(19) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulation for Greater Mumbai, 2034 (for short 'DCPR 2034').

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had accordingly submitted a proposal to the Municipal Corporation and accepting such proposal, an Intimation of Disapproval (for short 'IOD') dated 11 November 2021 came to be issued in favour of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that except for respondent no.3, the other 20 tenants have no objection for the redevelopment being undertaken by the petitioner as per the proposal submitted by the petitioner to the respondent- Municipal Corporation. It is only respondent no.3 who is now bipin prithiani 905-wp-5302.22.doc objecting to the redevelopment as proposed by the petitioner, for which an IOD has already been issued as noted above. The next step for the petitioner is to obtain a commencement certificate, however, as respondent no.3 is objecting and is refusing to enter into a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (for short 'PAAA'), and/or not issuing an NOC to the petitioner, the Municipal Corporation considering condition nos. 7 and 8 of the IOD has refused to grant a commencement certificate to the petitioner. Conditions nos. 7 and 8 of the IOD are required to be noted, which read thus :

"7. That the Registered Agreement with the existing tenant along with the list will not be submitted before C.C.
8. That the consent letter from the existing tenants for the proposed additions/alternations in their tenement will not submitted before C.C. That the consent letter from the existing tenants for the proposed additions/alterations in their tenement will not be submitted before C.C."

6. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court primarily on the ground that respondent no.3 who is only one tenant out of the majority of the 21 tenants, cannot obstruct the redevelopment in such condition as inserted in the IOD by the Municipal Corporation is arbitrary. The petitioner, hence, has prayed for following reliefs:

8. Insofar as the Municipal Corporation putting the petitioner to terms as incorporated in condition nos. 7 and 8 of the IOD, i.e.; to have consent of 100% of the tenants or agreements for an alternate accommodation, to be entered with all the tenants, Mr. Godbole would rely on the decision of this Court in Raj M. Ahuja v/s. Jain M. Ahuja1. Mr. Godbole has submitted that this Court has held that incorporation of such a condition in the IOD is arbitrary, as it would amount to minority of the tenants/occupants by not consenting and stalling the entire redevelopment project. He submits that the insertion of such condition which was in pursuance to the guidelines as issued by the Municipal Corporation has been held and interpreted to mean that such guidelines do not mandate consent/agreement to be obtained from all 100% tenants/occupants. Thus, Mr. Godbole's contention is that the reliefs sought in the petition, ought to be granted to the petitioners, so that the redevelopment can be taken forward.

11. On the above conspectus, we have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the record.

12. At the outset, we need to observe that the primarily the relief as prayed by the petitioner is that the Municipal Corporation ought not to insist for compliance of condition nos. 7 and 8 of the IOD as in the facts of the present case, respondent no.3 is not entering into an agreement for an alternate accommodation with the petitioner, and thereby is stalling the entire redevelopment. In our opinion and as rightly contended by Mr. Godbole such issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Raj M. Ahuja (supra) wherein this Court interpreting similar condition as contained in an IOD, subject matter of consideration in such case, had held that incorporation of such condition which was in pursuance of clause 1.15 of 2018-Guidelines issued by the Municipal Corporation, namely, the " Guidelines for declaring private and Municipal buildings as C-1 Category (Dangerous, Unsafe)" do not mandate consent to be obtained from all 100% tenants/occupants and that consent of 51% to 70% of the tenants/occupants of the building as may be applicable to the proposals made under the relevant Regulation of the DCPR 2034 shall amount to sufficient compliance, for processing of development/ redevelopment proposal for a commencement certificate to be issued including in respect of buildings covered under Section 354 of the MMC Act. Mr. Godbole is also correct in his contention that bipin prithiani 905-wp-5302.22.doc Regulation 33(19) in fact is different from the other regulations, which had fell for consideration before the Court in the said decision, where consent of 51% to 70% was incorporated in the DCPR 2034. The submission is that such a clause has not been incorporated in Regulation 33(19) of the DCPR 2034.