The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by tenants, challenging the ongoing demolition and the redevelopment rights of a dilapidated commercial building, holding that all issues concerning redevelopment under recent amendments to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (MHADA) Act must be decided by MHADA’s designated officer while allowing demolition to proceed due to the building’s dangerous condition.
The case arose after the petitioners, tenants of Kalyan Bhawan in Kalbadevi, Mumbai, and the landlord submitted competing proposals to MHADA for redevelopment of their cessed (MHADA-controlled) property under Section 79-A of the MHADA Act (as amended in 2022). The core controversy revolved around which party had the legal right to redevelop the property after the building was identified as unfit for use.
Background skirmishes included prior High Court litigation and orders, with both parties relying on competing interpretations of Section 79-A. The tenants claimed a right to redevelop after the landlord’s alleged failure to act within statutory deadlines, while the landlord asserted compliance by submitting a timely proposal and challenged the tenants’ standing. The matter was complicated by ongoing demolition authorized by the City and by previous Division Bench and Supreme Court orders stating that if the landlord fails to submit a redevelopment proposal within time, tenants could step in; but if the landlord does submit, the authority must decide on the merits.
The Bench comprising Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Arif S. Doctor observed that, by law, only MHADA could formally determine whose redevelopment bid should prevail under Section 79-A. The Court recorded that both landlord and tenant proposals were pending and that the core jurisdictional issues had not yet been adjudicated by MHADA’s competent officer.
Accordingly, the High Court declined to grant any injunctive relief to the tenants (including stopping the ongoing demolition), ordered all parties to appear before the MHADA authority, and directed the designated officer to hear both sides and decide the redevelopment rights within 15 days from the order.
The Court further clarified that nothing precluded MHADA from continuing the demolition of the dangerous structure, which was already underway, and that all contentions of both sides on redevelopment would be kept open for decision before the authority.
Appearances:
For Petitioner (Tenants): Mr. G. S. Godbole, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. G. B. Naik
For the Respondent-State: Ms. Varsha Sawant, AGP
For Respondent Nos.2 to 4 (MHADA units and authorities): Mr. Akshay Shinde
For Respondent No.5 (Landlord): Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Ravleen Sabhrawal, Mr. Aman Anand, Mr. Chirag Sarawagi, Ms. Aarushi Yadav, Mr. Mandar Waidande and Mr. Somesh Pathak i/b. R.S. Justicia Law Chambers