918-OSWPL-18154-2023.
DOC
Sumedh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 18154 OF 2023
Savio Dsouza & Ors …Petitioners
Versus
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai & …Respondents
Anr
Ms Rohini Pandit, with Esha Solanki & Kevin Gala, for the
Petitioner.
Mr Raghav Gupta, with Sanyukta Karne, i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co,
for Respondent No. 2.
Ms Vandana Mahadik, for the Respondent-MCGM.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Kamal Khata, JJ.
DATED: 22nd August 2023
PC:-
1. The 3rd Petitioner is about 86 years old. His wife is
bedridden.
2. Petitioner No. 3 and the other two Petitioners are the only
continuing occupants of this building at Bandra. It is undoubtedly in
a bad structural condition, although the Petitioners maintain that it
is capable of repairs. We will examine that question a later.
Page 1 of 5
22nd August 2023
918-OSWPL-18154-2023.DOC
3. Presently, on the photographs shown to us by the learned
Advocate for the MCGM, the extent of damage seems to be
considerable, although, admittedly, we are not in a position to
pronounce on the structural stability of the building. The Technical
Advisory Committee (“TAC”) had in 2021 said that the building
was of a C2-A category, not C1. But rather conveniently for the 2nd
Respondent, the Landlord, for two monsoons since 2021, nothing at
all has been done towards effecting the repairs that even the TAC
believed were necessary. The MCGM for its part has done nothing
to ensure that those repairs were carried out in a timely fashion.
Instead, the Landlord has allowed the building to degrade further.
The MCGM has stood by. Now that the building has deteriorated
further, it is claimed by both MCGM and the Landlord that it is in a
ruinous and uninhabitable condition, not safe for human habitation
and is, therefore, in the C1 category. It needs, they say, to be
immediately pulled down, and all occupants evicted. In furtherance
of that belief, the MCGM has recently on 17th August 2023 actually
disconnected both water and electricity supply to the entire
structure.
4. Our immediate question to the learned Advocate for the 2nd
Respondent was what redevelopment had been proposed in all this
time. After all, it is settled law both under the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888 and under the Maharashtra Rent Control
Act, 1999 that landlords and property owners have certain
obligations in regard to the premises under tenancies. They cannot
simply be ignored. The landlord-tenant relationship does not end
because premises are evacuated for the purposes of redevelopment,
or because a building is too dangerous for continued human
Page 2 of 5
22nd August 2023
918-OSWPL-18154-2023.DOC
occupation. That branch of the law has been firmly settled. The
Supreme Court decision in Shaha Ratansi Khimji & Sons v Kumbhar
Sons Hotel Pvt Ltd & Ors 1 now makes it clear that the rights of
tenants and occupants are unaffected by a demolition required for,
say, repairs or reconstruction. There is also a series of decisions of
Division Benches of this Court regarding the obligations of
landlords.
5. To our very great surprise, we are told that the property
owner has no redevelopment plan at all. It is not even contemplated.
There is no provision for transit accommodation for tenants. There
is no proposal for redevelopment of the building, or for rehousing
the existing occupants in that redeveloped building on any basis
whatsoever. This has gone on since at least 2021 and possibly longer.
The 2nd Respondent has taken possession of some of the residential
tenements in the building. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners
submits that there are proceedings in the Small Causes Court, but it
seems that there is no eviction proceeding against Respondent No.
3. Rather it is Petitioner No. 3 who has filed a declaratory suit
against Respondent No. 2.
6. That does not even begin to address our concerns. We simply
fail to see how private property owners can literally throw their
tenants out on the street by letting their buildings deteriorate and
degrade like this. That is not the frame of the law.
1 (2014) 14 SCC 1.
Page 3 of 5
22nd August 2023
918-OSWPL-18154-2023.DOC
7. Of greater concern to us is the complete inaction by the
MCGM in ensuring that the owner has a proper redevelopment
proposal. Nobody begrudges the property owner or the redeveloper
of additional development benefits on redevelopment of a tenanted
cessed structure, but this does not mean that a private owner has
only right but no obligations.
8. As a first and most immediate measure, the MCGM will
forthwith reconnect both power and water supply to the building by
end of the day today.
9. By Thursday, 24th August 2023 we expect to see from the
2nd Respondent-Developer at least an initial redevelopment
proposal for the entire property. Details may follow at a later stage.
If, however, by Thursday, the 2nd Respondent says that either it has
no redevelopment proposal or that it does not propose to do any
redevelopment at all, then we will make appropriate orders in that
regard. But we will not permit the redeveloper, with or without the
assistance of the MCGM, to jeopardise tenants and occupants of
structures in the city in this fashion.
10. The MCGM officers will reconnect the water and electricity
supply without awaiting a copy of this order to be uploaded.
Learned Advocate for the MCGM will communicate this order to
the MGCM immediately.
11. List the matter first on board for orders on Thursday, 24th
August 2023.
Page 4 of 5
22nd August 2023
918-OSWPL-18154-2023.DOC
12. Further Affidavit of the Petitioners is to be filed in the
Registry. Copies are to be served on advocates for both the
Respondents.
13. The Director of the 2nd Respondent must remain personally
present in Court on the next date.
(Kamal Khata, J) (G. S. Patel, J)
Signed by: SUMEDH N. SONAWANE Page 5 of 5
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 22nd August 2023
Date: 24/08/2023 10:16:38
