Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Aliasgar Razaali Zaboli, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25 January 2018 passed by the Chief Officer, Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board. The dispute concerned the right of Respondent No.3, a legal heir of the original tenant Razaali Gulamhussain Zaboli, to be included as a joint occupant in the permanent alternative accommodation under a redevelopment scheme under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 (DCR). The original tenant Razaali occupied Room Nos.24, 25 and 26 in Mohammedi Mansion, Dadar (West), Mumbai. Razaali died on 1 October 1995, leaving his widow Munawar and three sons: the petitioner, Respondent No.3, and Respondent No.4. Munawar died on 31 August 2006. The building was sold to M/s Sugee Developers by a deed of conveyance dated 27 December 2009, and the developer proposed redevelopment. The petitioner claimed that he and Respondent No.4 were in actual physical possession, while Respondent No.3 had shifted to Hyderabad. Initially, the Chief Officer certified only Respondent No.4 as occupant, which the petitioner challenged in Writ Petition No.967 of 2012. The High Court directed reconsideration, and the Chief Officer then held the petitioner and Respondent No.4 jointly entitled, allotting transit accommodation to them. When permanent alternative accommodation was proposed, the developer included Respondent No.3 as well. The petitioner objected, leading to the impugned order which included Respondent No.3. The petitioner argued that Respondent No.3 had voluntarily shifted out and was not in occupation, and that the Chief Officer had no jurisdiction to decide rights of legal heirs. The court rejected these arguments, holding that all legal heirs of the original tenant are jointly entitled to the redevelopment benefits, and the Chief Officer's order was correct. The court dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Redevelopment - Joint Entitlement of Legal Heirs - Regulation 33(7) of Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 - The court considered whether a legal heir who had shifted out of the premises is entitled to be included in the permanent alternative accommodation. The court held that all legal heirs of the original tenant are jointly entitled to the benefits of the redevelopment scheme, and non-occupation does not disentitle a legal heir. The court upheld the Chief Officer's order including Respondent No.3 as a joint occupant. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Respondent No.3, a legal heir of the original tenant who had shifted to Hyderabad, is entitled to be included as a joint occupant in the permanent alternative accommodation under a redevelopment scheme under Regulation 33(7) of DCR, despite not being in actual physical possession at the time of the scheme.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 25 January 2018 passed by the Chief Officer, Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board is upheld. Respondent No.3 is entitled to be included as a joint occupant in the permanent alternative accommodation.
Law Points
- Legal heir's right to redevelopment benefits
- joint entitlement of all legal heirs
- Regulation 33(7) DCR 1991
- non-occupation does not disentitle
- principle of joint tenancy
- succession rights
