Allowed

Reliable Investment and Developers and Anr. v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC29 Sept 2010WP/1546/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay directed MHADA to carry out urgent repairs on a dilapidated building by April 30, 2010, conditioned upon the petitioners depositing the full estimated cost of Rs. 77 lakhs within one week.

What did the court decide?

Directed MHADA to carry out repairs by 30th April 2010 pending deposit of Rs. 77.00 lakhs by petitioners.

Reliable Investment and Developers and Anr. Vs Maharashtra… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2010)

WP.1546.2010

mst

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1546 OF 2010 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.526 OF2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1546 OF 2010

¶6

Reliable Investment and Developers & ors. Petitioners versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development authority and two others Respondents

¶7

Mr.E.P.Bharucha, Sr.Adv. with A.B.Kapadia i/by M/s.D.F. & Divan for petitioners.

¶8

Mr.G.W.Mattos, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶9

Mr.D.A.Joseph i/by M/s.David Associates for respondents 6, 7 and 13.

¶10

Mr.C.S.Balsara i/by Rajiv Jadhav for respondent nos.11 and 14.

¶11

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶12

DATE : 29^th September 2010

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are claiming to be the owners of building known as Devji Kanji Building situate at 75, Chandanwadi, Mumbai, seek directions against respondent Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "MHADA" for short) to accept the payment made bythe

WP.1546.2010

mst

petitioners and to forthwith commence the repair work of the said building. The petitioners have also prayed to prohibit the respondent authorities from proceeding further with the allotment of the No Objection Certificate ("NOC" for short) in respect of the repairs of the said building to the tenants/occupants of the said building. In fact, the petitioners have challenged the No Objection Certificate dated 23rd April 2010/23rd July 2010 issued in favour of the occupants. The proposal made by the occupants of the said building on the basis of said NOC has been rejected by the Municipal Corporation on 24th September 2010.

¶19

In view of the order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to set out all the facts in detail or to set out the rival contentions of the parties, because the order that we propose to pass, will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and the controversy which some of the occupants have sought to raise about the ownership of the building by the present petitioners.

¶20

Mr.Mattos, learned counsel appearing for MHADA under instructions states that the MHADA has already prepared plans for the repairs to be carried out to the building in question and that the proposed repairs are estimated to cost about Rs.77.00 lakhs (Rs.Seventy seven lakh only) approximately. It is submitted that the MHADA will commence the work of repairs after the petitioners deposit the same amount of Rs.77.00 lakh with MHADA..

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners under

WP.1546.2010

mst

instructions states that the petitioners will deposit by tomorrow the balance amount over and above the amount already paid by them to MHADA so as to make it total sum of Rs.77.00 lakhs.

¶26

The learned counsel for respondent nos.6, 7 and 13 submits that no equity should be created in favour of petitioners by virtue of deposit of Rs.77.00 lakh, as according to his clients, they do not admit the petitioner's title to the property in question.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent nos.11 and 14 has no objection to the MHADA carrying out the repairs at the costs to be paid by the petitioners.

¶28

Though served, none appears for respondent nos.5, 8, 9, 10 and 12.

¶29

In our view, the presence of respondent no.3 is not necessary for the purposes of giving appropriate directions in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties who have appeared before us.

¶30

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for MHADA and learned counsel for petitioners, we dispose of this petition with a direction that the MHADA shall carry out the work of repairs of building known as "Devji Kanji Building" situate at 75, Chandanwadi, Mumbai-400 002 by 30th April 2010 subject to the condition that the petitioners pay the MHADA a total sum of Rs. 77.00 lakhs (Rs.Seventy seven lakh only), including the amount already paid by them to MHADA so far within one week from

WP.1546.2010

mst

today.

The learned counsel appearing for MHADA states that upon the petitioners' paying the entire amount of Rs.77.00 lakhs as indicated above for the repairs to the building in question, there will be no enhancement in the repair cess on the occupants of the building including the petitioners. The statement is accepted. We make it clear that neither the petitioners nor any of the respondents/occupants of the residential/commercial units of the said building shall obstruct the repair work to be carried out by the MHADA..

¶36

We may also note that the above directions are required to be given notwithstanding the objections raised by respondent nos.6, 7 and 13, because according to the MHADA, the portion of the building in question is in dilapidated condition and an urgent action is required to be taken by MHADA..

¶37

It is further clarified that all the decisions in the process shall be taken by MHADA and neither the petitioners nor the respondents shall interfere with the decision taken by MHADA..

¶38

The writ petition as well as Notice of Motion are disposed of in above terms.

¶39

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

Reliable Investment and Developers and Anr. v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliable Investment and Developers and Anr. v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahakar Shiromany Vasantrao Kale Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Annasaheb Narsu Quane Vs the Chief Secretary, the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Navjeevan Rahivashi Sra Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Mohammedali Chottu Sheikh Vs Municipal Corpn, of Gr. Mumbai

Bengal Club and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jerry Thomas Vs State of Maharashtra