MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by eight tenants who tried to stall the redevelopment of a dangerously dilapidated building in Malad West. The court fined them ₹2 lakh each and reiterated that the property owner has the right to get his building redeveloped and tenants cannot oppose such a demolition. The Krishna Baug building near Malad Railway station was demolished two years ago. (Raju Shinde / HT Photo)

The eight tenants had opposed their eviction and the demolition of the 100-year-old Krishna Baug Building No.1 which had been classified by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) as a C1 category building, extremely dangerous and unfit for habitation. In 2020 the BMC had issued a notice for the building’s immediate demolition.

A division-bench of justices Ajey Gadkari and Kamal Khata heard two separate pleas, one by the tenants of commercial premises filed in 2023, challenging the BMC’s demolition notice and questioning the C1 category, and another by building owners asking for the demolitions to be enforced, instead of being stalled by tenants.

Tenants wanted the building to be reclassified from the C1 category to the C2-B category which suggests repairs and renovations. They said that repair work had already been completed, the ground floor of the building was no longer dangerous, and there was no need for evicting them anymore.

The court called this as an ‘obstructionist approach intended to hinder the landlord’s efforts toward redevelopment’ and made it illegal for tenants to obstruct demolitions. The court added that the rights of tenants are safeguarded by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and the BMC Act.

The court said that as per section 17 (tenants rights in matters of redevelopment) of the Rent Control Act, and section 499 (regarding repair work) and 354 (removal of structures) of the BMC Act, tenants had the right to oppose the ‘reconstruction’ of the building, but not the ‘redevelopment’ of it. In real estate, reconstruction refers to rebuilding a structure without any change, and redevelopment involves demolishing the structure and building a new one with a different design and layout.

While asking the tenants to pay the fine, the court said that they had been focused only on extending their stay in the building without taking into consideration other residents of the building.