Disposed

Nehru Nagar Amrapali Chs Ltd. v. Maharahstra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada) and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2022WP/3335/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of three joint writ petitions concerning a dispute over wall removal, occupation certificate, and rent payments between housing societies and a developer.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of all three writ petitions without costs.

What the court decided

Nehru Nagar Amrapali Chs Ltd. Vs Maharahstra Housing and… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

44.WPNo.100782021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 10078 OF 2021

¶5

Nehru Nagar Sunil Cooperative Housing Society … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Peal Concept Habitat LLP & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 16955 OF 2021

¶10

M/s. Pearl Concept Habitat LLP … Petitioner Versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) & Ors. … Respondents

¶11

WITH

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 3335 OF 2021

¶13

Nehru Nagar Amrapali Cooperative Housing Society … Petitioner Versus

¶14

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) & Ors. … Respondents

¶15

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Vijay Dhingreja, Mr. Ravish Mishra, Mr. Jayraj V. Shinde i/b. Mr. Vijay Dhingreja, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/16955/2021 and for Respondent No.1 in WPL/10078/2021.

¶16

Mr. Vachan Bodke a/w. Ms. Pinky Sharma, Mr. Aniket Tawade, Ms. Ankita Vishwakarma i/b. V & M Legal, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/3335/2021 and for Respondent No.2 in WPL/16955/2021.

¶17

Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre a/w. Ms. Sonali Jadhav, Mr. Krishna Eppar, Advocates for Respondent No.2 in WPL/10078/2021.

¶18

Mr. Shankar P. Thorat, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 in WPL/16955/2021.

¶19

1/4

¶20

Gaikwad RD

¶21

44.WPNo.100782021.doc

¶22

Mr. P. S. Gole, Advocate for the Petitioner in WPL/10078/2021.

¶23

Mr. Amit Shastri, AGP for the Respondent/State in WPL/10078/2021.

¶24

Ms. Uma Palsuledesai, AGP for the Respondent/State in WPL/16955/2021.

¶25

Mr. Sukanta Karmarkar, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/3335/2021.

¶26

Mr. P. G. Lad a/w. Ms. Shreya Shah, Ms. Sayali Apte, Advocate for the Respondent/MHADA.

¶27

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & S. M. MODAK, JJ.

¶28

DATED : JULY 4, 2022

¶29

P.C.

¶30

The stalemate, it appears, is because of the wall standing between building No.132 and 133. It is accepted by all that because of the change in the lay out the DP road has undergone change. The width of the DP road near 132 is increased and 133 is reduced.

¶31

It is contended on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Planning Authority that the wall is required to be removed so that further steps can be undertaken.

¶32

The learned Counsel appearing for the occupant of building No.133 submits that as yet the developer has not obtained the Occupancy Certifcate. The learned Advocate for the developer submits that if the wall is removed, the steps would be undertaken for obtaining the Occupancy Certifcate. The said statement is accepted.

¶33

2/4

¶34

Gaikwad RD

¶35

44.WPNo.100782021.doc

¶36

The learned Advocate for the Planning Authority submits that the Developer shall remove the wall at his own costs. The learned Counsel for the Developer agreed to the same.

¶37

The parties should cooperate with each other for obtaining the Occupancy Certifcate. Now the only question remained is of rent for those who were occupying building No.132. It is submitted that the payment of Rs.40,00,000/has been made. The amount outstanding is 2,60,00,000/-.

¶38

The learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 10078 of 2021 submits that within three days, the complaint fled before the various Authorities would be withdrawn by the petitioner. The chart has been given by the learned Advocate for the Developer as to the manner in which the payment would be made. The same reads thus :

¶39

i. Rs.50,00,000/- on or before 31/07/2022 ii. Rs.50,00,000/- on or before 30/09/2022 iii. Rs.50,00,000/- on or before 30/11/2022 iv. Rs.50,00,000/- on or before 31/01/2023 v. Rs.60,00,000/- on or before 28/02/2023

¶40

The chart that has been given is excluding the current rent amount that has to be paid by the Developer to the persons occupying building No.132. Regular rent shall be regularly paid to these persons as per the agreement. If any default is committed by the Developer in payment of the amount as reproduced above, Developer may make himself liable for contempt. MHADA may provide necessary assistance for removal of the wall in question including police protection if required.

¶41

3/4

¶42

Gaikwad RD

¶43

44.WPNo.100782021.doc

¶44

Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶45

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶46

Digitally signed by RAJU RAJUDATTATRAYAGAIKWAD DATTATRAYAGAIKWADDate:2022.07.07 13:43:36 +0530

¶47

4/4

¶48

Gaikwad RD

Nehru Nagar Amrapali Chs Ltd. v. Maharahstra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada) and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Nehru Nagar Amrapali Chs Ltd. v. Maharahstra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada) 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

Deepak Dagdu Harale and Ors. Vs the Pricipal Secretary(Agriculture)and Ors.

Dr N. Y. Tasgaonkar Institute of Medical Science Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Dept. of Medical Education and Drugs Dept. and Ors.

Bharat Bansi Kadlaskar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary General Administration and Ors.

Ramesh Devji Phadakale Vs Mumbai Building Repair and Renconstruction Board and 6 Ors.

Standard Chartered Bank Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivanand S/O. Shrimant Mage and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary General Administration Dept. and Ors.