Bombay High Court: Tenants have few rights and can’t control redevelopment.

MUMBAI: According to the Bombay High Court, tenants have few rights and cannot tell the owner how to renovate their property. The court ordered the BMC to grant a commencement certificate for redevelopment in the matter of a Khar (West) building where an “obstinate tenant” (HC’s words) was delaying renovation. The owner, a limited liability partnership company called G M Heights, had applied to the HC.

A bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and R N Laddha stated, “Tenancy rights cannot be stretched to the point where the course of refurbishment can be taken over by the tenants, so as to take away the basic corporeal rights of the property’s owner in order to undertake redevelopment of the owner’s choice. According to a legal, the verdict is anticipated to open the door for future redevelopment initiatives.

Formerly named as Rami Raja Chawl, the structure in question housed 21 residents and was demolished in August 2021 after being deemed dilapidated. The owner suggested a block for a business, which the sole tenant, represented by attorney D K Jain, claimed was illegal.

For the owner, senior attorney GS Godbole indicated that the application had been accepted and that, aside from one tenant, the other 20 tenants had no objections to a commercial structure being included in the redevelopment plan.

The tenant would not sign the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement and refused to provide a NOC. In 2021, BMC stipulated that the go-ahead for actual construction or the commencement certificate may only be given following the approval of all tenants. In its petition, the owner disputed the BMC’s requirements, claiming they were arbitrary and unlawful.

The HC held that the owner had the right to carry out reconstruction in the manner and kind they intended and that the tenants could not force the owner to rebuild the building in the same manner in which it originally stood. The only rights the tenants had were to be given new housing in an area that was comparable to what they had before the building was razed.

According to the HC, which recently made clear that BMC cannot, under its guidelines, demand 100% consent in cases of a dangerous building and consent from 50-70% of tenants would suffice, the tenant’s counsel was unable to demonstrate “any embargo on the landowner’s right to initiate revitalization, different from the nature of the existing building which has stood demolished.”

In the situation at hand, the owner offered the renters accommodations in exchange for their tenancy in the commercial building, which the “obstinate tenant” refused to accept. As a last resort, monetary compensation was also provided by the owner.

The HC stated, “To put it mildly, the (tenant’s) approach is most unreasonable and insistent.” The court also made note of an ongoing eviction case that was being heard by the small cause’s court, the resolution of which would affect the tenant’s offer of new housing.