- Appliance Upgrade Days – Get up to 50% off on bestselling ACs & Refrigerators.
The High Court, in a hearing conducted on behalf of the owner of the land, said that ‘the rights of the tenant cannot be increased to such an extent that the basic physical rights of the owner of the property are taken away. This was said by the bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and RN Ladda. According to a lawyer, such a decision can give illegal force to the tenants in future.
The whole matter is about the building under consideration. Originally known as Rami Raja Chawl. There were 21 tenants in the building here. The building was demolished in August 2021 after being declared dilapidated. A sole tenant proposed a commercial structure to the owner. Which was not legally correct. Advocate DK Jain filed the appeal on his behalf. On the other hand, senior advocate GS Godbole, appearing for the owner, said that the BMC has accepted the proposal given by the landlord. Barring one, the other 20 tenants had no objection to the commercial building in the redevelopment plan. Tenant refused to give NOC and did not sign permanent alternate accommodation agreement.
According to the condition of BMC issued in the year 2021, approval for actual construction or commencement certificate was to be issued only after the consent of all the tenants. The owner, in his petition, challenged the BMC’s conditions, arguing that the tenant was acting arbitrarily. Unconstitutional things have also been cited behind this. The HC ruled that this argument on behalf of the tenants was misconceived. In which it was said that the owner should erect the building in the same way as it was before. The judgment said that the owner had the right to redevelop. Referring to the sole right of the tenants, it was said that alternative accommodation should be provided at the site where the building was built.
Get the more latest Maharastra news updates