Sharad Lalji Tambe vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sharad Lalji Tambe vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with observations and directions recorded by consent: (a) Owner to place the Petitioner notionally back into the position of a Tenant despite demolition; (b) PAAA Agreement between the Developer and the Owner and/or Tenant binding on both irrespective of signature; (c)-(d) Owner to permit the Tenant to receive temporary transit rent/compensation, with the Owner-Tenant dispute and transit rent receipts subject to their litigation; (e) Corporation to proceed on the arrangement so re-development takes shape; (f) Flat No.303 to be kept secured with no third-party interest or parting with possession until the dispute is resolved; (g) post-OC property taxes and maintenance charges payable by the temporarily occupying Tenant, failing which recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the MLR Code; (h) transit rent already paid by the Developer to the Owner and unpaid transit rent (August 2025 to 28th February 2026) kept open for the Competent Court. Pending Interim Applications stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Owner of the demolished tenement must place the Petitioner notionally back into the position of a Tenant, the premises having already been demolished and re-development being undertaken. +6 more

Court's answer

The Owner of the tenement in which the Petitioner was residing claiming a tenancy right will place the Petitioner notionally back into the position of a Tenant, the premises having already been demolished and re-development being undertaken.

Ratio / Principle

The Owner as well as the Petitioner agree to a PAAA Agreement between the Developer and the Owner and/or Tenant; such a PAAA Agreement binds both the Owner and the Tenant irrespective of having been signed by either of them.

Key takeaways

The Owner agrees to allow the Tenant to receive the temporary transit rent/compensation; the dispute between the Owner and the Petitioner-Tenant, as well as the Tenant receiving the transit rent, shall be subject to the decision in the litigation between the two, if already instituted or likely to be instituted.ratio¶45
The Corporation would proceed on the afore-stated premises/arrangement, and the re-development of the Project would take shape.ratio¶49
Considering the dispute between the Owner and the Petitioner-Tenant, the Developer undertakes that one accommodation tentatively allocated as Flat No.303 shall be kept secured; until the dispute is resolved, the Developer will not create any third-party interest in, or part with possession of, the said flat, since either the Petitioner-Tenant or the Owner is likely to receive that tenement.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ravindra V. Ghuge & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.), by consent, disposed of Writ Petition No.3893 of 2025 concerning a Petitioner-Tenant whose tenement had been demolished for re-development. Directions: (a) Owner to notionally restore the Petitioner as Tenant (¶42); (b) PAAA Agreement between the Developer and the Owner and/or Tenant to bind both Owner and Tenant irrespective of signature (¶43); (c)-(d) Tenant entitled to temporary transit rent/compensation, with the inter se dispute and transit rent receipts subject to the outcome of their litigation (¶44-¶45); (e) Corporation to proceed on the arrangement so re-development takes shape (¶49); (f) accommodation tentatively numbered Flat No.303 kept secured, with the Developer undertaking not to create third-party interest in or part with possession until the dispute is resolved (¶50); (g) after OC, the temporarily occupying Tenant liable for property taxes and maintenance charges if the dispute remains unresolved, with liberty to the Authorities to recover such charges as arrears of land revenue under the MLR Code (¶51); (h) transit rent already paid by the Developer to the Owner made subject-matter of the dispute, and unpaid transit rent for August 2025 to 28th February 2026 kept open for the Competent Court (¶54). Pending Interim Applications disposed of (¶56).

905-WP-3893-2025.odt

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

WRIT PETITION NO.3893 OF 2025

Sharad Lalji Tambe

….Petitioner

Versus

The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ….Respondents

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 5972 OF 2026 IN

WRIT PETITION NO.3893 OF 2025

Sai Siddhi Builders And Developers, Through Partners Nilesh Gadekar and Haresh Patel

….Applicant

Versus

The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ….Respondents

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7732 OF 2025 IN

WRIT PETITION NO.3893 OF 2025

Sanman Prakash Gaonkar & Ors. ….Applicants

In the matter between :

Sharad Lalji Tambe ….Petitioner

Versus

The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ….Respondents

1 of 5

Kartikeya

905-WP-3893-2025.odt

Mr. Abhishek L. Tripathi a/w Mr. Bharat Tiwari, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Ranjit Agashe a/w Mr. Pranil Lahigade and Ms. Renu i/b. Mr. Pankaj Thatte, Advocate for the Applicants in IA(L)/5972/2026.

Mr. Rajendra Jain i/b. Mr. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate, a/w Ms. Indrayani Koparkar and Ms. Ankita Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

Mr. Rakesh Pathak, AGP, for the Respondent No.4-State.

Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate, a/w Ms. Anjali Ghuge, Advocate for Respondent No.1 (MCGM/BMC).

Ms. Shalaka Parulekar (Daughter of Land Owner), present in the Court.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 25^th FEBRUARY, 2026

P.C. :-

This matter was heard for quite some time at around 6:00

O’ Clock yesterday and was granted an overnight passover.

Today, after considering the submissions of the learned

Senior Advocates, as well as the learned Advocates for the appearing parties, and in view of the consensus, we are passing the following order :

2 of 5

Kartikeya

905-WP-3893-2025.odt

(a) The Owner of the Tenement in which the Petitioner was residing claiming a tenancy right, will place the Petitioner notionally back into the position of a Tenant (the premises have already been demolished and re-development is to be undertaken).

(b) The Owner, as well as the Petitioner, agree to a PAAA Agreement between the Developer and the Owner and/or the Tenant, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in this case. Such a PAAA Agreement would bind both these parties, meaning the Owner as well as the Tenant, irrespective of having been signed by either of them.

(c) The Owner agrees to allow the Tenant to receive the temporary transit rent/compensation, which would be subject to the dispute between the Owner and the Tenant.

(d) The dispute between the Owner and the Petitioner-Tenant, as well as the Tenant receiving the transit rent, shall be subject to the decision in the litigation between the two, if it is already instituted or is likely to be instituted.

3 of 5

Kartikeya

905-WP-3893-2025.odt

(e) The Corporation would proceed on the afore-stated premises/arrangement, and the re-development of the Project would take shape.

(f) The Developer makes a statement, on instructions, that, considering the dispute between the Owner and the PetitionerTenant, one accommodation in the re-developed property, which is tentatively allocated a number as Flat No.303, shall be kept secured, and until the dispute between the Petitioner-Tenant and the Owner is resolved, the Developer would not create any third-party interest in or part with possession of, the said flat, since either of these two persons is likely to receive the said tenement.

(g) After the building is completed and it receives OC, the said Flat No.303 would entail property taxes and maintenance charges. If the dispute between the Petitioner-Tenant and the Owner is not resolved in any Court of law until then, the Tenant who would be occupying the said flat temporarily, would be liable to pay all these charges without any reservation or objection . If he opposes any such payment, we grant liberty to the Authorities to initiate steps for recovery of all these charges as arrears of land revenue under the MLR Code.

Kartikeya 4 of 5

905-WP-3893-2025.odt

(h) The transit rent already paid by the Developer to the Owner would also be a subject of dispute between the Owner and the Tenant. The issue of unpaid transit rent has been kept open for the Competent Court to deal with when the dispute between the Petitioner-Tenant and the Owner is taken to fruition, from the period from August 2025 to 28^th February 2026.

With the above observations and directions, this Petition is disposed off .

Pending Interim Applications stands disposed off .

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

5 of 5

Kartikeya

Issues for consideration

7 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Owner of the demolished tenement must place the Petitioner notionally back into the position of a Tenant, the premises having already been demolished and re-development being undertaken.¶42
The court held
The Owner of the tenement in which the Petitioner was residing claiming a tenancy right will place the Petitioner notionally back into the position of a Tenant, the premises having already been demolished and re-development being undertaken.ratio¶42
2.
Whether a PAAA Agreement between the Developer and the Owner and/or Tenant would bind both the Owner and the Tenant irrespective of whether either of them signed it.¶43
The court held
The Owner as well as the Petitioner agree to a PAAA Agreement between the Developer and the Owner and/or Tenant; such a PAAA Agreement binds both the Owner and the Tenant irrespective of having been signed by either of them.ratio¶43
3.
On what terms may the Petitioner-Tenant receive temporary transit rent/compensation, and how are the Owner-Tenant dispute and the receipt of transit rent to be treated vis-a-vis their litigation.¶44
The court held
The Owner agrees to allow the Tenant to receive the temporary transit rent/compensation; the dispute between the Owner and the Petitioner-Tenant, as well as the Tenant receiving the transit rent, shall be subject to the decision in the litigation between the two, if already instituted or likely to be instituted.ratio¶45
4.
How is the accommodation tentatively numbered Flat No.303 in the re-developed property to be protected until the dispute between the Petitioner-Tenant and the Owner is resolved.¶50
The court held
Considering the dispute between the Owner and the Petitioner-Tenant, the Developer undertakes that one accommodation tentatively allocated as Flat No.303 shall be kept secured; until the dispute is resolved, the Developer will not create any third-party interest in, or part with possession of, the said flat, since either the Petitioner-Tenant or the Owner is likely to receive that tenement.ratio¶50
5.
Who bears property taxes and maintenance charges on Flat No.303 after completion and Occupation Certificate (OC) if the Owner-Tenant dispute remains unresolved, and how may unpaid charges be recovered.¶51
The court held
After the building is completed and receives OC, Flat No.303 entails property taxes and maintenance charges; if the Owner-Tenant dispute is not resolved in any Court of law until then, the Tenant temporarily occupying the flat would be liable to pay all these charges without any reservation or objection.ratio¶51
6.
How are transit rent already paid by the Developer to the Owner, and unpaid transit rent for the period August 2025 to 28 February 2026, to be dealt with.¶54
The court held
The transit rent already paid by the Developer to the Owner would also be a subject of dispute between the Owner and the Tenant.ratio¶54
7.
Whether the Corporation may proceed on the consensual premises/arrangement so that the re-development of the Project takes shape.¶49
The court held
The Corporation would proceed on the afore-stated premises/arrangement, and the re-development of the Project would take shape.ratio¶49