The Bombay High Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC) to proceed with the demolition of the ground floor of Krishna Baug Building No.1, Malad (West), occupied by certain commercial tenants who were resisting eviction despite the structure being categorized as “C-1”
The order was passed in Writ Petition No. 4097 of 2024 filed by the landlords Rajaram and Shantaram Ketkar, who sought enforcement of the BMC’s demolition notice dated October 26, 2020, issued under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The demolition had been resisted by several commercial tenants occupying shops on the ground floor, who simultaneously filed Writ Petition (L) No. 26976 of 2023 to challenge the BMC’s classification of the building as “C-1”—dangerous and to be demolished immediately—and sought its reclassification to “C2-B” to allow repairs and continued occupation.
The Court, however, dismissed the tenants’ plea, emphasizing that landlords have an absolute legal right to redevelop their property, regardless of structural condition, as upheld in previous decisions such as Anandrao G. Pawar v. MCGM, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2534 and Chandralok People Welfare Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2300. It noted that the nearly 100-year-old structure was unfit for occupation, and redevelopment could not proceed unless demolition was carried out. The Court found the tenants’ conduct to be obstructionist and lacking in bona fides, observing that their continued resistance was aimed solely at preserving their commercial tenancies to the detriment of other residents and the larger redevelopment objective. Referring to Khimjibhai Patadia v. MCGM, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3709, the Court condemned such resistance as a “sophisticated form of extortion” disguised as litigation.
Granting relief to the landlords, the Court directed the BMC to demolish the shops in question and to evict the tenants, including use of police force if necessary. It further imposed a cost of ₹2,00,000 on each petitioner in the tenants’ writ petition, directing the amount to be paid to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks. The tenants’ request to stay the operation of the judgment pending appeal to the Supreme Court was also rejected, with the Court noting that their continued obstruction was causing hardship to other occupants and undermining public interest.
Advocates appearing in the case:
Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, a/w Ms. Leena Shah, i/by Ms. Shah and Furia Associates for the Petitioner in WPL/26976/2023 and for Respondent Nos.6, 7, 12 and 13 in WP/4097/2024.
Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate, i/by Mr. Pradeep Havnur for the Petitioners in WP/4097/2024.
Mr. Sanjeev Singh, i/by Adv. Ritesh Singh for the Applicant in IAL/29277/2023.
Ms. R.M. Hajare a/w. Adv. Rutuja Bodake i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi for Respondent Nos.1 to 4-BMC in both Petitions. Ms. Manisha Gawde, AGP for Respondent No.5 in WP/4097/2024.
Adv. Vikhil Dhoka, a/w Mr. Abhijit Mukherjee, i/by GM Legal for Respondent No.8 and 10 in WP/4097/2024.
Ms. Aditi S. Naikare a/w. Adv. Rushikesh Kekane for Respondent Nos.9 and 11 in WP/4097/2024.
Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Leena Shah, Adv. Shubham Mishra i/by Furia Associates for the Petitioner in WPL/26976/2023 and for Respondent Nos.6, 7, 12 and 13 in WP/4097/2024 on 27th June, 2025.
Read Judgment
