Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by seven residents acting for themselves and on behalf of 217 occupants of Haji Kasam Chawls, a cluster of dilapidated buildings in Mumbai. The petitioners sought to challenge the redevelopment agreement entered into between the developer (Respondent No.4) and the proposed co-operative society representing the occupants. The property consisted of six buildings constructed about 140 years ago, with 736 occupants, including 627 in cessed structures, 85 in non-cessed structures, and 24 in slum structures. In 2007, the developer obtained over 90% consent from the occupants for redevelopment, and an agreement was signed on 19 April 2007, providing alternate accommodation of 225 sq. ft. plus a dry balcony of 75 sq. ft. A further agreement on 5 June 2007 included a clause (clause 17) that if additional benefits became available under regulations before construction commenced, those would be extended to occupants. MHADA issued an NOC under DCR 33(7) on 28 June 2008. On 2 March 2009, the State Government enhanced the eligible rehabilitation area from 225 sq. ft. to 300 sq. ft. under DCR 33(7) and substituted DCR 33(9), with a provision that ongoing projects where construction had not reached plinth level could opt for the modified regulations. The developer offered the enhanced 300 sq. ft. plus 75 sq. ft. dry balcony, but some occupants, including the petitioners, demanded 500 sq. ft. and sought to stall the project. The court framed the issue of whether the petitioners could resile from the agreement after giving consent and obtaining benefits. The court analyzed the DCRs and found that the project was eligible for the enhanced area as construction had not reached plinth level. The court held that the petitioners were bound by their consent and could not unilaterally withdraw. The court also noted that the developer's offer was fair and in compliance with regulations. The petition was dismissed, and the chamber summons was disposed of.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Redevelopment of Dilapidated Buildings - Consent of Occupants - DCR 33(7) and DCR 33(9) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 - The petitioners, representing 217 residents, challenged the redevelopment agreement for Haji Kasam Chawls. The court held that the developer had obtained over 90% consent in 2007, and the petitioners could not unilaterally resile from the agreement after the project had progressed. The enhanced rehabilitation area of 300 sq. ft. was applicable as construction had not reached plinth level, and the developer's offer of 300 sq. ft. plus 75 sq. ft. dry balcony was fair. (Paras 1-15) B) Contract Law - Binding Nature of Consent - Estoppel - The petitioners, having given consent and obtained benefits under the redevelopment agreement, were estopped from challenging the same. The court noted that the petitioners had accepted the terms and could not now seek to stall the project. (Paras 10-12) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Housing - Reasonable Rehabilitation - The court held that the rehabilitation offer of 300 sq. ft. carpet area plus 75 sq. ft. dry balcony was reasonable and in compliance with the applicable DCRs. The petitioners' demand for 500 sq. ft. was not supported by any regulation. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who had given consent for redevelopment of dilapidated chawls, could subsequently challenge the redevelopment agreement and seek to stall the project, and whether the enhanced rehabilitation area of 300 sq. ft. under DCR 33(7) and DCR 33(9) was applicable to the project.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of the chamber summons, holding that the petitioners were bound by their consent and could not resile from the redevelopment agreement. The court upheld the developer's offer of 300 sq. ft. plus 75 sq. ft. dry balcony as fair and in compliance with DCR 33(7) and DCR 33(9).
Law Points
- Consent of majority occupants binds dissenting minority in redevelopment schemes
- Enhanced rehabilitation area under DCR 33(7) and DCR 33(9) applies to ongoing projects if construction not completed up to plinth level
- Agreement to redevelop cannot be unilaterally resiled from after obtaining benefits
- MHADA NOC under DCR 33(7) valid
- No fundamental right to stall redevelopment of dilapidated buildings
