Mumbai: Bombay High Court set aside a Mhada order that had last July declared a Worli building as “dangerous,” stating “merely because the building is old it cannot be termed as perilous”.
On April 3, Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata deemed as “invalid” Mhada’s Section 79-A notice to the landlord of the Worli chawl. The notice mandated compulsory redevelopment of a dangerous building and hence said its order to declare it “dangerous” stood vitiated. The court noted Mhada’s failure to explain why the building was declared dangerous within a year of repairs by its repair board.
The court, though, granted a two-week stay on its judgment, on requests from tenants and Mhada who said they would challenge the ruling before the Supreme Court. HC, though, said Mhada’s request was “unusual” given it was bound by law and must “not misinterpret it, abuse it and act in a mala fide manner”.
The dispute centred on Shoorji Vallabhdas Chawl at Worli Naka, owned by Vimalnath Shelters Pvt Ltd. The owner’s redevelopment attempts date back to 1993, with BMC approving plans in 1996 and fresh proposals in 2008.
Following tenant grievances of Dec 2022 fowarded by MLA Ashish Shelar, Mhada initiated action and finally issued a Section 79-A notice in May 2023, requiring compulsory redevelopment. The owner contested the notice, arguing it relied solely on visual inspection without structural assessment. The court noted an evident deadlock between landlord and tenants in 2024.
The court clarified law requires two notices: One for repairs and the other allowing six months’ time. Only if owners fail to secure 51% tenant consent can tenants propose redevelopment.
The owner also questioned Section 79A’s validity, suggesting tenants refused consent to secure larger rehabilitation homes through another developer. The landlord’s lawyers Chirag Mody and Deepak Shukla, argued upholding Mhada’s orders would diminish owner’s rights. Mhada’s advocate P G Lad maintained they aimed to protect tenant interests while expressing openness to giving the landlord another redevelopment opportunity. Tenants’ counsel Sandesh Patil opposed the owner’s petition, citing unfulfilled promises and delays.
Tenants feared if owners delay or fail to redevelop the building. One builder offered more area than the landlord and since six months by law have elapsed, tenants contended they are entitled under Section 79-A to get a chance to develop the property through their selected developer.