Bombay High Court
Henry D Almeida And 13 Ors vs Delite Construction Company 5 Ors on 27 June, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-OS:9632-DB
sns 30-osial-11715-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2881 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.11715 OF 2025
1. Delite Construction Company ]
Through its Partner ]
Mukesh Ramesh Bajaj ]
Having registered office at ]
Plot No. 99/B, Collector Colony, ]
Chembur Colony, Mumbai - 400 074 ] ...Petitioner
V/s
1. Maharashtra Housing and Area ]
Development Authority, ]
Having office at Griah Nirman ]
Bhavan, Bandra East, ]
Mumbai 400 051. ]
2. Executive Engineer MHADA, ]
Office of the Executive Engineer, ]
"A" Div, M.B. R & R Board, ]
Colaba Transit Camp, ]
Captain Prakash Pethe Marg, ]
Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar, ]
Colaba, Mumbai. ]
3. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ]
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Bldg., ]
Mahapalika Bhavan, Mahapalika Marg, ]
opp. CST Station, Mumbai 400 001. ]
4. The Executive Engineer A-Ward, ]
Designated Officer, ]
Building and Factories Department, ]
Near RBI Building, Fort, ]
Mumbai 400 001. ] ...Respondents.
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
SUMEDH NAMDEO
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2025.06.30
11:24:04
1/7
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2025 12:05:54 :::
sns 30-osial-11715-2025.doc
Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh a/w. Adv. K. Amol, Adv. Ranjit Thorat, Senior
Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Abhishek Salian, Adv. Harjot
Singh A., Adv. Kinnari Raut, Adv. Aditya Hedge for the Applicants in
IAL/11715/2025.
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Manisha Jagtap for Respondent
No.1 and 2-MHADA.
Ms. Pushpa Yadav for Respondent Nos.3 & 4-BMC.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 7th May, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 27th June, 2025.
Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the Petitioners seek directions against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2,
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ('MHADA'), to
cancel the contract awarded for repair works in respect to three buildings,
namely i) Munera Lodge, ii) Delite Building and iii) Jasmin House, situated
on Plot No.12 of the Wood House Bridge Road Estate, corresponding to C.S.
No.444 of Fort Division, located at the junction of Convent Street and SBS
Road, Colaba, Mumbai-05 (herein after referred to as the 'Writ Property').
1.1) Additionally, the Petitioners also seek a direction against
Respondent Nos.3 and 4-Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ('BMC'), to
sns 30-osial-11715-2025.doc
decide on the structural stability of the aforementioned buildings on the
basis of the Structural Audit Report submitted by the Petitioners and
occupants, in accordance with the Order dated 29th March, 2023 passed by
this Court in Writ Petition (L) No.8472 of 2023.
1.2) The Petitioners further seek a direction to the Respondent
Nos.1 to 4 to consider their redevelopment proposal for the said buildings
expeditiously and in a time bound manner.
2) It is the Petitioners grievance that Respondent No.4, BMC has
failed to comply with the directions of this Court dated 29 th March, 2023 by
not determining the structural category of the three buildings. Furthermore,
Respondent Nos.1 and 2-MHADA, have proceeded to assign repair work
contracts despite the pendency of the Petitioner's redevelopment proposal
without first deciding the buildings' structural stability. According to the
Petitioners, this action constitutes a misuse of power under Section 79(A) of
the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 ('MHADA Act').
2.1) The Petitioners further allege that no hearing was granted in
respect of their representations dated 14 th February 2022 and 6th April
2022. They are also aggrieved by the fact that MHADA accepted complaints
and approved repair work on the writ buildings at the behest of non-
regularized occupants, without verifying their legal status or the relevant
facts.
sns 30-osial-11715-2025.doc
2.2) According to the Petitioners, the impugned contract has been
granted on the basis of false and malafide complaints made by such non-
regularized occupants. They assert that, MHADA failed to verify relevant
documents and the Court Receiver records prior to granting of the said
contract. Hence, the Petitioners contend that the contract is untenable in
law, arbitrary, and ought not to have been awarded without first duly
considering their redevelopment proposal.
3) Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh learned counsel for the Petitioner
asserts that, Petitioners are lessees under a registered Indenture of
Assignment dated 21st July 1979, by which they acquired leasehold rights
over the Writ Property. The three buildings comprise of ground + two upper
floors collectively consisting of 29 rooms.
4) On the other hand, some of the tenants have filed an Interim
Application (L) No.11715 of 2025 seeking intervention in the matter on the
ground that any Orders passed in the present Petition are likely to affect
their rights and cause prejudice them.
5) Mr. Atul Damle, learned senior Counsel for the Applicant
intervenors, submits that they are the bona fide tenants and lawful
occupants of the writ buildings and rely upon rent receipts and other
supporting documents to substantiate their tenancy claims. The buildings in
question are stated to be 100 years old and are classified as Class III
sns 30-osial-11715-2025.doc
heritage structures, located within a heritage precinct.
5.1) It is further submitted that, there are ongoing disputes between
the legal heirs of the deceased partner and the surviving partners of the
firm. The tenants contend that they have regularly maintained the buildings
and most recently, carried out repairs through MHADA, the last of which
was undertaken in the year 2022. According to the tenants, the buildings
are structurally repairable and therefore ought not to be permitted to be
redeveloped by the Petitioner, landlord.
6) Mr. Ravi Kadam, learned a senior counsel for MHADA,
submitted that pursuant to the Order dated 29 th March 2023, passed by this
Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition(L) No.2472 of 2023, the Petitioner therein
was permitted to carry out a structural audit of the writ buildings. It was
directed that in the event the findings of that audit differed from the audit
conducted by the land owner, the BMC would refer the matter to the
Technical Advisory Committee ('TAC') for adjudication and submission of
report, determining whether the buildings fell under C-1 or C-2 category.
6.1) He submitted that the TAC, by its report dated 5 th January,
2024, confirmed that the writ property fall under the C-2 category.
Accordingly, MHADA intends to undertake the necessary repairs in the
interest of public safety. The learned counsel submitted that, the proposed
repairs include repairs of roof, walls, parapet. He clarified that, the
sns 30-osial-11715-2025.doc
Petitioners' redevelopment proposal, which falls under MHADA jurisdiction,
will be considered and decided by MHADA on its own merits and in
accordance with law within a period of four weeks.
7) Having considered the rival submissions, in our view,
considering the statement made by Mr. Kadam, learned senior counsel, both
the Petition and the Intervention Application can be disposed off with a
direction that MHADA may continue with the proposed repairs of roof,
walls, parapet and staircases of the buildings.
7.1) MHADA shall also simultaneously consider the Petitioners
proposal for redevelopment on its own merits and in accordance with law
within a period of six weeks from the date of this Judgment.
8) It would not be out of place to observe that in Anandrao G.
Pawar vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others reported in
2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2534i, this Court has held that, the landowner is
entitled to demolish even a building which is structurally sound. It was
further held that the rights of the tenants are protected not only under the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 2000 but also the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888. Accordingly, the intervenor's rights remain duly
safeguarded by law.
9) In view of the aforestated, the Petition is disposed off with no
order as to costs.
sns 30-osial-11715-2025.doc
10) In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, Interim Application
does not survive and same is accordingly disposed off.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
i
Anandrao G. Pawar vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2534.
