No Court Can Be Tool To Obstruct Genuine Redevelopment Efforts: Bombay HC Imposes 5L Costs On Tenant For Obstructing Redevelopment Of 83-Yr-Old Building

The Writ Petition before the High Court was filed challenging the decision of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). It was alleged that the Landlord was attempting to evict the tenant (Petitioner) by devious means i.e. by declaring the building as dilapidated.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Kamal Khata and Justice A.S. Gadkari asserted, “ The property in question is situated in a prime location in the city of Mumbai and has huge monetary potential. The Petitioner is well aware of the said fact and therefore is trying to create hurdle in the development of the suit property. There is absolutely no justification for the Petitioner, as a tenant, to deprive the landlord of the legitimate fruits of redeveloping his property. “

Advocate Ramchandra N. Kachave represented the Petitioner while Advocate Sheetal Metkari represented the Respondents.

The facts of the case suggested that Bubna Bungalow is an 83-year-old structure located on S.V. Road in Mumbai. The Petitioner became a tenant of the first floor and terrace of Bubna Bangalow through an Agreement of 1995 executed with the heirs cum executors of one late Niranjanbai P Bubna, the original landlady, for a monthly rent of Rs. 700. The Petitioner claimed that the landlords had been harassing him with an intention to evict him from the tenanted premises. There were multiple litigations between them. The current landlord became involved after purchasing the property from the heirs-cum-executors.

A suit was also filed for eviction on the ground of unauthorised construction but failed to secure any interim relief. Subsequently, the BMC issued a notice under section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 (MRTP Act). In view of the Order where the parties were given liberty to challenge the TAC’s decision, the present Petition was filed.

The Bench was of the view that challenging the TAC report would involve determining disputed questions of fact which cannot be entertained by a Writ Court. “It is well established that disputed factual matters and require assessment of evidence the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, involving examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution”, it said.

Relying upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Andheri Purab Paschim Cooperative Housing Society Limited V/s Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another reported in (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2522), the Bench said, “It categorically held in Clause 4(e) (highlighted in bold and underlined hereinabove) that, a Writ Court exercising jurisdiction will not substitute its own view for that of technically qualified experts. Equally, the Writ Court will not prefer the view of one expert over the other.”

“It is abundantly clear that the Petitioner’s tenancy rights are protected even in the event of the building’s demolition for reconstruction or redevelopment. Moreover, the tenants’ right to undertake reconstruction in the event of landlord’s failure to do so has also been firmly established”, it added.

“The Petitioner was not only presumed to be aware of it but was also explicitly informed through the Order dated 22nd April 2024. Despite this, he has chosen to file present Petition, claiming that liberty was granted to file another Petition on the same apprehension that his rights as a tenant would be affected”, the Bench said.

The Bench imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 5 lakh and said, “It is abundantly clear to us that this Petition is filed with a view to obstruct the redevelopment. Six out of seven tenants have vacated. The Petitioner, however, has successfully managed to delay vacating for over five years.”

“From a review of Judgements over the past years, we observe such litigations often amount to a sophisticated form of extortion.”, it further held while also adding, “High-stake cases warrant high deterrent costs to discourage frivolous and mischievous Petitions. Without such measures, the judicial process risks becoming a cheap tool for unscrupulous litigants seeking to exploit it for personal gain.”

Cause Title: Mr. Khimjibhai Harjivanbhai Patadia v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai [Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-OS:19666-DB]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Ramchandra N. Kachave

Respondents: Advocates Sheetal Metkari,Komal Punjabi, Mayur Khandeparkar, Dhawani Bokaria, Amita Jasani, Purnanand & Co.

Click here to read/download Order