Mumbai: The Bombay high court (HC) recently held that even if the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) identifies a building to be a C-1 category (dilapidated), neither the civic authority nor the owner can forcefully evict the tenants without first ensuring that their interests are protected and area plans are shared with them.
The condition was suggested by the HC after it was informed by the occupants of a south Mumbai commercial structure that they were reluctant to vacate the premise as they were not informed as to how much area they would get when the building was reconstructed as neither the owner nor the BMC was willing to share the information.
The HC held that the BMC had to be transparent about such projects and post information on its website to ensure that the stakeholders were updated about the progress of the project as well as when they would be getting back to their premises.
The division bench of justice Gautam Patel and justice Gauri Godse while hearing the petition filed by 24 occupants of a commercial building at Tardeo was informed by senior advocate Sharan Jagtiani that there were apprehensions in the way the landlord had tried to get them vacated. Jagtiani submitted that the landlord had done a structural audit report of the two ground plus two-storey structures in 2020, but had not informed the tenants of the same. The report stated that the two buildings needed major repairs.
Thereafter, the tenants got a separate structural audit report which also suggested repairs.
However, after the TAC had visited the buildings and done a site inspection and referred to the two previous reports, it suggested demolition of the buildings as they were extremely dilapidated and were of the C-1 category.
Jagtiani submitted that the tenants did not dispute the TAC report but were not willing to vacate the premises as they were not aware of what area they would get after the buildings were reconstructed. He submitted that both the landlord and the BMC had been unwilling to share information when it was sought from them.
After hearing the submissions, and being assured by advocate Sagar Patil for the BMC that the petitioners would be given access to the information they sought, the bench held, “there is a concern about what it is that the owners will seek when submitting development plans and what the MCGM will finally sanction. Specifically, the concern is that these plans will not be shared with the Petitioners and there will be ongoing disputes. We believe these to be valid concerns,” noted the bench in its order.
Thereafter the bench issued eight guidelines that it expected the BMC to follow. “To ensure transparency, we also propose to frame a set of recommendations or suggestions — not mandatory directions — with a direction to the MCGM to consider these seriously at the highest level for incorporation either as part of the TAC guidelines or as a supplementary set of guidelines to ensure transparency in all C1 category re-development projects.”
The guidelines include providing a copy of the area statement submitted by the owner or prepared by the BMC to the tenants and uploading the same on the BMC website in a manner that can be searched. The other guidelines refer to disputes arising from the area statement that is to be adjudicated by the BMC as per their record and provision of inspection of the project or property to the tenants. Lastly, the guidelines dwell on the provision of transit protection to be approved by the BMC if the tenants are eligible for the same.