Dedicated locality research platform
Dedicated locality research platform
Enter your email address and you will receive
a link to reset your password
In a recent judgment handed down on September 8, the Bombay High Court firmly rejected a tenant's plea for additional commercial space in a contentious redevelopment dispute. The court declared its intention to establish a scheme where tenants must first secure potential costs, including payments to other parties for transit rent, before their petitions are heard or interim relief is granted.
The case in question revolves around the redevelopment of a cessed building in Rangwala Compound, Byculla. The tenant, Raj Bucket Factory (RBF), represented by one of its partners, Mohammed Pachorawala, had petitioned the High Court earlier this year. RBF sought directions to obtain 5,363 square feet of carpet area, comprising 4,755 square feet of space it occupied as a tenant and an additional 608 square feet of mezzanine area within the new building.
The redevelopment project is being undertaken by Godrej Residency, who took over from Neelkamal Realtors Tower Ltd. Advocate Shriram Kulkarni, representing RBF, cited documents from 2012 and a certification by the BMC (Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation), confirming their occupation of 4,755 square feet of space, which the builder is now obligated to provide. However, senior counsel Sharan Jagtiani, representing Godrej, argued that tenants could willingly accept a smaller area than certified.
In its judgment, the High Court expressed incredulity that a tenant in a city as space-constrained as Mumbai could claim ignorance about the extent of the area they were occupying. Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata emphasized the city's soaring land prices and cramped living conditions, highlighting that even families were often confined to living spaces of around 100 square feet.
The court refuted the petitioner claims, stating it was unbelievable that in city like Mumbai, once could be ignorant of the space they are occupying. The controversy surrounding the case led to what the court described as "extremely curious happenings."
The Court noted a property battle within the Pachorawala family in 2004 and a 2008 High Court order that offered RBF 3,750 square feet of commercial premises in the proposed construction for free, in exchange for surrendering their property for redevelopment. In 2009, RBF withdrew a review plea claiming a difference in the tenanted area. Now, in 2023, the High Court expressed its dismay that RBF seemed unwilling to vacate the dilapidated transit building on the site, despite the 2008 order.
An affidavit submitted by Pachorawala in July 2023 suggested that the builder had not accurately recorded the tenanted area in 2008. However, the High Court placed the blame squarely on RBF, asserting that it was implausible for them to determine when to vacate the transit building solely based on a desire for more space.
The High Court concluded its judgment by stating, "no party may simultaneously 'approbate or reprobate.'" This decision serves as a significant development in the ongoing legal battle over the commercial space in the redevelopment project, with potential ramifications for similar disputes in Mumbai's bustling real estate market.
Propscience is India’s dedicated property news portal. We cover the latest events, news, trends, deals, new launches and more.
All our services and tools are completely free of cost and available 24X7!
