Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kagalwala Building Resident Welfare Association, representing residents of a building being redeveloped by respondent No.4 (Aaraaish Developers) under Development Control Regulation 33(7), filed a writ petition seeking enforcement of compensation for temporary alternate accommodation. Notarized agreements were executed in July 2008, requiring the developer to provide permanent alternate accommodation within 24 months and pay compensation for temporary accommodation, with an escalation clause for delays. The residents vacated the building but the developer failed to pay adequate compensation. The court considered whether MHADA (respondent No.1) and the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (respondent No.2) have a duty to enforce the compensation terms. The court held that MHADA has a statutory obligation under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, to ensure compliance with DCR 33(7) and the agreements. The court directed MHADA to determine the appropriate compensation and enforce payment by the developer, and also directed the developer to pay compensation as per the agreement. The petition was allowed with directions.
Headnote
A) Housing and Development - Redevelopment under DCR 33(7) - Compensation for Temporary Alternate Accommodation - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, Sections 13, 14 - The petitioner, a resident welfare association, sought enforcement of compensation for temporary alternate accommodation as per notarized agreements executed under DCR 33(7). The court held that MHADA has a statutory duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the agreement and DCR 33(7), and directed MHADA to determine the appropriate compensation and enforce payment. (Paras 1-5) B) Contract - Notarized Agreements - Compensation Clause - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 73 - The notarized agreements between the residents and the developer provided for compensation for temporary alternate accommodation with an escalation clause. The court held that the developer is bound by the terms of the agreement and must pay compensation as per the agreement. (Paras 3-4) C) Administrative Law - Statutory Duty - Enforcement of Development Control Regulations - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, Sections 13, 14 - MHADA is under a statutory duty to ensure that developers comply with the terms of DCR 33(7) and the agreements executed thereunder. The court directed MHADA to take appropriate action to enforce the payment of compensation. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the developer is liable to pay compensation for temporary alternate accommodation as per the notarized agreements and DCR 33(7), and whether MHADA is obligated to enforce the same.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and directed MHADA to determine the appropriate compensation for temporary alternate accommodation and enforce payment by the developer. The developer was directed to pay compensation as per the agreement and DCR 33(7).
Law Points
- Development Control Regulation 33(7)
- Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act
- 1976
- Compensation for temporary alternate accommodation
- Notarized agreements
- Obligation of MHADA to enforce developer's obligations
