Keep distance from builders: Bombay High Court cautions BMC

The Bombay High Court recently cautioned the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) against acting at the instance of builders after noting that one of the pleas filed by BMC seemed to have been moved to benefit a builder..A Bench of Justices GS Patel and Gauri Godse asked the municipal body to maintain distance from builders.The plea by BMC sought vacation of an order which had stayed eviction of tenants from a temporary structure which had become dilapidated.The bench observed that application by BMC was without merit as it seemed to benefit only the developer.“One cannot escape the feeling that this application by BMC is at the instance of the developer, to somehow or the other get vacant possession of the property without making provision for permanent alternate accommodation for the tenants. If this application is allowed, the only result is that the tenants are thrown out, the temporary transit accommodation is demolished and the developer/owner gets a bonanza of getting a completely emptied plot”, the Court said.It minced no words in coming down upon the municipal body for filing the plea.“We are firmly of the opinion that this application by BMC is utterly without merit and possibly worse. We have put the MCGM to notice that it would be in the fitness of things if it put some distance between itself and developer/builders,” the Court recorded in its 8-page order..The grievance by the tenants was that they had not been provided with a permanent alternate accommodation before issuing eviction notices.The Court had, in 2018, permitted them to continue staying in the structure at their risk.BMC filed the present application seeking vacation of that order and directions to the tenants to evict the structures.The Court noted that unlike old structures, the present structure which the civic body was seeking to vacate was a new structure temporarily built as a transit accommodation for the tenants. The tenants were promised redevelopment by the owner. The old structure was torn down and the present structure was constructed till a more permanent alternate structure could be built.The Court took exception to the tenants' concern of where they would go if evicted from the temporary structure. “The MCGM does not tell us where these tenants are supposed to go if reliefs are granted. Presumably, they are to be thrown on to the streets of the city and left to fend for themselves. The MCGM has sufficient power and authority to take action against the 4th Respondent developer and to compel it to complete the project for which it got sanction. There is no indication in the Interim Application that the MCGM has done anything in that direction,” the Court held.The Court also did not agree with BMC’s submission that the structure was dilapidated as there were many such buildings which were dilapidated. “We are yet to see this level of enthusiasm in litigation from the MCGM in regard to other buildings that are perhaps even older and certainly far more dilapidated,” the Bench remarked, rejecting the application..[Read order]