Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, tenants residing in a cessed building known as Martand Prasad Building in Malad (West), Mumbai, filed a writ petition challenging the proposed demolition of the building by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and the developer M/s. Vip Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The building was declared dilapidated by the MCGM, and the respondents sought to demolish it without providing alternate accommodation to the tenants. The petitioners contended that the MCGM had not followed the procedure under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, which requires notice to the owner and occupiers and consideration of objections before demolition. They also argued that under Development Control Regulation 33(7), the developer was obligated to provide alternate accommodation to the tenants before demolition. The respondents argued that the building was dangerous and needed immediate demolition for safety reasons. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 354 of the MMC Act and DCR 33(7) and held that the MCGM must follow the statutory procedure, including issuing notice to the occupiers and considering their objections, before ordering demolition. The court also held that the developer must ensure rehabilitation of the tenants as per DCR 33(7). The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to give notice to the petitioners and hear them before any demolition, and to provide alternate accommodation in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Demolition of Dilapidated Building - Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - The court considered whether the Municipal Corporation could demolish a building declared dilapidated without following the statutory procedure under Section 354, which requires notice to the owner and occupiers and consideration of objections. The court held that the procedure under Section 354 must be strictly followed before demolition, and the Corporation cannot act unilaterally without giving an opportunity of hearing to the tenants. (Paras 10-15) B) Development Control Regulations - Rehabilitation of Tenants - DCR 33(7) - The court examined the requirement under DCR 33(7) that before demolition of a cessed building, the developer must provide alternate accommodation to the tenants. The court held that the developer and the Corporation must ensure that tenants are rehabilitated in accordance with the DCR before demolition. (Paras 16-20) C) Right to Housing - Protection of Tenants - The court recognized the right to housing as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and held that tenants cannot be rendered homeless without due process of law. The court directed that the petitioners be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before any demolition. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai can demolish a cessed building declared dilapidated without complying with the procedure under Section 354 of the MMC Act and DCR 33(7) regarding rehabilitation of tenants.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to give notice to the petitioners and hear them before any demolition, and to provide alternate accommodation in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- 1888
- Development Control Regulations 33(7)
- Right to housing
- Procedure for demolition of dilapidated buildings
- Notice to tenants
- Rehabilitation of tenants
