Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, tenants of a building known as Bori Chawl situated at Ram Tekdi Road, Sewri, Mumbai, filed a writ petition challenging the refusal of the respondents to grant permission for redevelopment of the building. The building was a cessed building under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. The petitioners sought to redevelop the building through a developer, respondent No.8. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, MHADA, and the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, had rejected the application for redevelopment on the ground that the petitioners had not obtained the consent of all tenants as required under paragraph 12 of a Government Resolution dated 3rd December, 2001. The petitioners contended that paragraph 12 only required that the tenants be informed and their objections considered, not that their consent be obtained. The respondents argued that the consent of all tenants was mandatory. The court analyzed the language of paragraph 12 and held that it did not impose a condition of obtaining consent from all tenants. The court noted that the paragraph only required that the tenants be given an opportunity to object and that their objections be considered. The court further held that the authorities must consider the application for redevelopment on its merits and not reject it solely on the ground of lack of consent. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to reconsider the application in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. The court also directed that the redevelopment be carried out in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
Headnote
A) Interpretation of Government Resolution - Paragraph 12 - Consent of Tenants - Government Resolution dated 3rd December, 2001 - The Court interpreted paragraph 12 of the Government Resolution and held that it does not mandate the consent of all tenants as a condition precedent for redevelopment. The requirement is only to inform the tenants and consider their objections, not to obtain their consent. (Paras 2-5) B) Redevelopment of Cessed Buildings - MHADA Act, 1976 - The Court considered the provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 and the role of MHADA in redevelopment. It held that the authorities must consider the application for redevelopment on its merits and not reject it solely on the ground of lack of consent from all tenants. (Paras 6-8) C) Writ Jurisdiction - High Court - The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the impugned order and direct the authorities to reconsider the application for redevelopment in accordance with law. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether paragraph 12 of the Government Resolution dated 3rd December, 2001 requires the consent of all tenants as a condition precedent for the grant of permission for redevelopment of a cessed building.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondents to reconsider the application for redevelopment in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Government Resolution
- Consent of tenants
- Redevelopment of cessed buildings
- MHADA Act
- 1976
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- 1888
