Shree Sai Pawan S. R. A. Chs Ltd vs Chief Executive Officer, Sra And 4 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1931 Bom

                                                                   21-OSWPL-9291-2022.DOC




                   Arun



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                               WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 9291 OF 2022


                   Shree Sai Pawan SRA CHS Ltd                              ...Petitioner
                         Versus
                   Chief Executive Officer, SRA & Ors                    ...Respondents


                   Mr Amogh Singh, i/b Jeet Gandhi, for the Petitioner.
                   Mr Jagdish G Aradwad (Reddy) , for the Respondent No.1.
                   Mr Sandeep R Patil, for Respondent No.2.
                   Ms Swati Chheda, i/b MP Vashi & Asso, for Respondent No.3.
                   Mr Vijay D Patil, for Respondent No.5-AGRC.


                                        CORAM         G.S. Patel &
                                                      Neela Gokhale, JJ.

                                        DATED:        27th February 2023
                   PC:-

1. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have arranged between themselves ARUN RAMCHNDRA to be appointed as co-developers of this slum rehabilitation project SANKPAL

at Jogeshwari. Over 300 persons are affected. No transit rent has Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHNDRA SANKPAL been paid to the majority of them since 2019, i.e., for the last four Date: 2023.02.28 10:06:38 +0530 years. The site has been cleared and there are 300 persons on some form of transit. Of these, 17 persons are in transit accommodation and are therefore not receiving transit rent. But the transit accommodation itself is in dilapidated condition. The remaining 230 persons have received no transit rent since 2019 and have been left

27th February 2023 21-OSWPL-9291-2022.DOC

to fend for themselves. The two co-developers have arranged to lock themselves in a never-ending arbitration. There is no work being done at site.

2. If Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are at all serious about this project, they will bring the entire amount of transit rent due to those entitled to transit rent from 2019 (although there may be a claim to take an earlier date) into Court by Friday, 3rd March 2023.

3. Mr Singh estimates that amount of Rs.11,20,40,000/-. Every single paisa of this must be paid to the Petitioner society by that date.

4. The reason is self-evident and we have repeated it again and again in series of judgments and orders. The fundamental point is this: This city is not for developers. The Slum Rehabilitation Act 1995 ("SRA") is not for developers. The Act is intended to serve a public welfare purpose. Developers are a means to that end. They are entitled to a free sale component provided by the incentive Floor Space Index ("FSI") but this is a consideration for their fulfilling their obligations under the contract (for there is always a development agreement) and under law, in the form of Letter of Intent issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Those obligations include not only the rebuilding or building of rehabilitation structures and tenements both commercial and residential, but also the payment of transit rent in the meantime or the providing of habitable transit accommodation. A developer who does not pay transit rent, does not provide habitable transit

27th February 2023 21-OSWPL-9291-2022.DOC

accommodation or otherwise is in default of his obligations, all of which have to be performed on a schedule and within a time frame, is not entitled to any of the benefits of the slum rehabilitation project, i.e., the free sale component. This is the overall architecture of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. . As regards slum dwellers, only those who are found to be eligible are entitled to these benefits.

5. But this means that where there is a demonstrated default by the developers or by the co-developers, then the privileges and entitlements are liable to be taken away for there is a complete failure of consideration. A party in default cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong and failure. That would be profiteering and that too at public expense because many of these slum projects are on public lands -- such as this one -- and the developer is not being made to pay the cost of land.

6. Or, to put it differently, the developer can always be changed. The beneficiaries of a SRA project cannot.

7. And let there be no mistaking this, that if our hand is forced, we will compel a change of developer.

8. If these developers want their rights to continue and to be preserved, they must demonstrate their bona fides. They must prove their sincerity. To seek equity, they must do equity.

27th February 2023 21-OSWPL-9291-2022.DOC

9. In this view of the matter, we are making it clear that unless there is payment as indicated above by Friday, 3rd March 2023, we will have little option but to consider immediately granting relief inter alia in terms of prayer clause (d) of the Petition to terminate the appointment of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as the developer and co-developer respectively of the project.

(Neela Gokhale, J)                                    (G. S. Patel, J)





                           27th February 2023