JSA represented Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust (SBUT) in a writ petition filed by the Mr. Abdul Rehman Shaikh, Mr. Abdul Sudhan Abrar Shaikh, Mr. Arshad Abrar Shaikh, Mr. Akhtari Abrar Shaikh and Mrs. Shaikh Salma Abdul Rehman (“Petitioners“) challenging the proceedings for eviction under section 95A the MHADA Act, 1976 (“MHADA Act“) in relation to building, Salamat House (“subject Building“).
SBUT is a public charitable trust which is undertaking a holisic redevelopment of Bhendi Bazar area free of cost to the tenants with the avowed object of rehabilitating approximately 3200 residential families and 1200 commercial businesses. The subject building forms part of the said project. The redevelopment is undertaken under Regulation 33(9) of the DCPR.
While rejecting the said writ petition, the Hon’ble High Court clarified that a plain reading of section 95A would indicate that it envisages three conditions (i) a proposal by the owner of the building backed by written consent of not less than 70% of the total occupiers of the building (ii) a NOC for such reconstruction by the Board; and (iii) the developer to make available to all the occupiers of such building alternate temporary accomodation. The Hon’ble Court clarified that if these conditions are satisfied, then it is obligatory on the part of the occupiers to vacate the premises for the purpose of redevelopment.
It was further clarified that section 95A of the MHADA Act does not warrant that the building to be redeveloped must be dilapidated or in dangerous condition.
Since the redevelopment was a cluster development scheme under Regulation 33(9) of the DCPR, the Hon’ble Court held that the ingredients of section 95A can be interpreted as under:
- Where there is a composite development, the consent is to be computed qua all the occupants of the properties under development.
- Under Section 33(9), in the matter of cluster development, all the plots covered under the Scheme shall stand amalgamated and the condition of the consent them related to occupants of all the plots.
- The very purpose of cluster development would be defeated if the requirement of a separate NOC under section 95A(a) of the MHADA Act is insisted qua each building comprised under such cluster development.
- NOC from the HPC for the entire cluster redevelopment would be sufficient satisfaction of requirement NOC from Board under Section 95A.
The Hon’ble Court in order to emphasis the importance of cluster redevelopment which is in public interest, have clarified that the object of cluster or composite redevelopment can only be achieved by ensuring that one or two dissenting members do not hold up the entire redevelopment project.
The Hon’ble Court in this judgment has not only clarified on the objects and keys ingredients of Section 95A of the MHADA Act but have also interpreted the conditions and clarified on its applicability for cluster redevelopment projects under Regulation 33(9) of DCPR.
Our Disputes Team Comprised Lead Partner – Varghese Thomas, Partner – Fatema Kachwalla, and Senior Partner – Ahsan Allana
Ahsan specialises in disputes in the corporate sector with an emphasis on penal laws and general corporate commercial disputes. He has extensive experience in Disputes relating to dishonour of cheques/promissory notes.