Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.36 seconds)
Dipika Tanavde vs Mumbai Building Repair And ... on 4 November, 2025 cites

Estella Fernandes Nee Estella ... vs Swarna Highrise Constructions And Anr on 4 May, 2023

27. Learned Counsel for the owners would be apposite in placing reliance on the Division Bench of this Court in Estella Fernandes Nee Estella Fernandes & Ors. Vs. Swarna Highrise Constructions & Anr. (supra) wherein speaking about the rights of the tenants, this Court has categorically observed that once the landlord guaranteed that the tenants would not be deprived of a permanent alternate accommodation, in lieu of their original premises, the tenants or occupants (including the minority or majority tenants) would not have any legal rights to dictate and/or foist on the landlord on the nature of the development being undertaken by the landlord, by demolishing the old and dilapidated buildings. The Court observed that if such assertion of the tenants/occupants is recognized, it would bring about a situation that the corporeal rights of the owners of the property would stand fully defeated. The Court also observed that in any event the tenants/ occupants cannot assert any higher rights being conferred on them in relation to redevelopment, unless expressly provided by the provisions of law. It was further held that the nature and character of the rights of the tenants do not alter, merely because redevelopment of the existing building is being undertaken by the landlord. As a sequel to this, it was held that the tenants/occupants cannot dictate their notions and any facet in that regard, on the redevelopment being undertaken, unless the law recognizes such rights or any Page 21 of 23 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 04/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2025 22:52:57 ::: 903-WPL-28861-24.DOC say of the tenants. It was further held that it cannot be accepted to be any proposition of law that the rights of the owners to undertake development depends on the dictates of the tenants, when by providing an alternate tenement to the tenants, as per law is being recognised and protected by the landlord. In our opinion such observations as made by the Court, clearly apply to the facts of the present case, as the petitioners intend to dictate to the landlord that an higher area of 45 sq.ft. be granted and if not granted, the entire project would be brought to a ransom, by not vacating the existing structures, when in such assertion of the petitioners/tenants no legal right can be recognized.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document
1