Disposed¶35

Kirti Kothari v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Bombay HC7 Apr 2026WP/3909/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MHADA; redevelopment proposal; DCPR 33(7); tenants; co-owners; consent for redevelopment; Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board; CEO; Small Causes Court eviction suits; four weeks deadline; writ petition disposed; Kirti Kothari; WP 3909 of 2025; Bombay High Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to MHADA to consider the redevelopment proposal under DCPR 33(7), permit co-owners (including Respondent No. 6) to respond, and process and decide the proposal within four weeks from 16th April 2026; Petitioners, Respondent No. 6 and Respondent No. 13 to appear before the CEO, Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board; proposal to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. ¶35

Kirti Kothari vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether MHADA ought to process and take a decision on the redevelopment proposal submitted by Respondent No. 13 under DCPR 33(7) in respect of the structure in which the Petitioners are tenants, and whether co-owners such as Respondent No. 6 may respond to the proposal.

¶25

Court's answer

Since the redevelopment proposal has been submitted by Respondent No. 13 to MHADA, it is for MHADA to consider the proposal and take a decision thereon in accordance with the provisions of DCPR 33(7).

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No. 6 or any other co-owner is free to respond to the redevelopment proposal.

¶28

Key takeaways

Upon consideration of the proposal and the responses, if any, MHADA is to process and take a decision on the redevelopment proposal.ratio¶29
The decision on the redevelopment proposal submitted by Respondent No. 13 is to be made within a period of four weeks from 16th April 2026.ratio¶33
The Petitioners, Respondent No. 6 and Respondent No. 13 are to appear before the CEO, Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board at 11.00 a.m. with a copy of the order, and the proposal is to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M. S. Karnik and S. M. Modak, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition by 10 tenants of a structure owned by Respondent Nos. 6 to 13, between whom there are disputes as co-owners. Respondent No. 13 (co-owner), with the tenants' consent, had submitted a redevelopment proposal under DCPR 33(7) to MHADA, which the Petitioners alleged was not being processed; Respondent No. 6 opposed, pointing to pending eviction suits against the tenants before the Small Causes Court. The Court held that it is for MHADA to consider the proposal and take a decision in accordance with DCPR 33(7); co-owners, including Respondent No. 6, are free to respond; MHADA is to process and decide the proposal within four weeks from 16th April 2026; and the Petitioners, Respondent No. 6 and Respondent No. 13 are to appear before the CEO, Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, the proposal to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶1

WP 3909 of 2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3909 OF 2025

¶3

Kirti Kothari and Ors.

¶4

...Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and Ors.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

¶9

Adv. Aseem Naphade i/by Soham Salvi - Advocate for the Petitioners Adv. Aditya Miskita a/w Adv. Sanjeev Kadam i/by Kadam and Company – For Respondent No. 13

¶10

Adv. Anjali Ghuge – For Respondent Nos. 4 and 5-MCGM/BMC Adv. P. G. Lad a/w Sayali Apte - For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3- MHADA

¶11

Mr. Girin N. Pandit and Aaditya G. Pandit – For Respondent No. 6

¶12

¶13

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND S. M. MODAK, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 07^th APRIL 2026

¶15

P. C. :-

¶16

The Petitioners are 10 tenants in respect of subject structure

¶17

which is owned by Respondent Nos. 6 to 13. There are some disputes

¶18

between the co-owners. The Petitioners had given their consent for

¶19

redevelopment to the Respondent No. 13-co-owner. Accordingly,

¶20

Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMAKSHITIJ YELKAR KSHITIJ Date: YELKAR 2026.04.0717:50:25 +0530

¶21

1/3

¶22

Seema

¶23

WP 3909 of 2025.doc

¶24

under DCPR 33 (7), the Respondent No. 13 had submitted a redevelopment proposal in respect of the said structure as stated in prayer clause (a). It is grievance of the Petitioners that the proposal has not been processed.

¶25

The Petitioners who are tenants pray that redevelopment proposal should be processed and acted upon.

¶26

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 6, who is one of the coowner appeared and submitted that suits are filed against these tenants (Petitioners) for the eviction before the Small Causes Court. It is only with a view to pressurize Respondent No. 6 that Petitioners are supporting Respondent No. 13.

¶27

Considering the proposal for redevelopment has been submitted by Respondent No. 13 to the MHADA, it is for MHADA to consider and take a decision thereon in accordance with provisions of DCPR 33 (7).

¶28

It is open for the Respondent No. 6 or any other co-owner to respond to such proposal.

¶29

Upon consideration of the proposal and the responses, if any, MHADA to process and to take a decision on redevelopment proposal

¶30

2/3

¶31

Seema

¶32

WP 3909 of 2025.doc

¶33

submitted by Respondent No. 13 within a period of four weeks from 16^th April 2026.

¶34

The Petitioners, Respondent No. 6 and Respondent No. 13 to appear before the CEO, Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board at 11.00 a.m. alongwith copy of this order. The proposal be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶35

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶36

(S. M. MODAK, J.)

¶37

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶38

3/3

¶39

Seema

Kirti Kothari v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirti Kothari v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pravin Yashwant Panchal vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Its Secretary

New Liberty Co-Operative Housing Society Limited vs Assistant Municipal Commissioner

Aditya Dharmendra Goyal and Anr. Throu. Poa vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Israr Ahmed Abdul Gaffar Khan vs Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board

Mohammedi Kurban Husein Sakarwala vs the Chief Officer, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada)

Khatunnisa Sahinuddin Khan vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority through Its Chief Executive Officer