Court Ruling in Chawl Redevelopment Case: PAA Eligibility and Ongoing Dispute.
A legal battle between three brothers over redevelopment benefits in their chawl (old row house) has concluded with a judgment favoring Ankush and Dilip. The court's decision paves the way for them to claim permanent alternate accommodation (PAA) during the redevelopment process.
Facts:
Lawoo, a tenant in an authorized room (room No. 13), is opposed to the No Objection Certificates (NOCs) granted by the MCGM (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai) to his brothers, Ankush and Dilip. Ankush and Dilip allegedly converted parts of the common areas, like the verandah and toilet block, into separate rooms before 2000 (considered unauthorized structures under DCPR - Development Control and Promotion Regulations). While the final plot (No. 840) where Lawoo resides is not part of the current redevelopment plan, final plots 751-752, where Ankush and Dilip reside in the unauthorized structures, are undergoing the process. This entitles Ankush and Dilip to permanent alternate accommodation (PAA) due to the inclusion of their structures in the redevelopment plan. Lawoo challenged the NOCs due to his dispute with his brothers, leading the MCGM to cancel/withhold them. The court, however, ruled in favor of Ankush and Dilip, stating that the MCGM's decision was flawed. The court highlighted that their structures predate the 2000 cutoff and qualify for PAA under DCPR. Lawoo's grievances regarding PAA were deemed separate and related to the redevelopment schedule, not his brothers' situation.
Court's Ruling:
The court sided with Ankush and Dilip. The court clarified that their structures existed before the year 2000 (datum line) and qualify as "contravening structures" under DCPR (Development Control and Promotion Regulations). This classification makes them eligible for PAA during redevelopment.
Key Takeaway:
The court's decision allows Ankush and Dilip to proceed with claiming PAA. Additionally, the court recognized the possibility of Lawoo also receiving PAA.
Lawoo's Separate Claim:
Lawoo has filed a separate suit claiming his room (Room No. 13) to be a contravening structure as well. The court has not yet delivered a judgment on this specific claim.
Conclusion:
The court's reasoning suggests that all three brothers could potentially benefit from PAA. Amending his suit to acknowledge the contravening status of his brothers' structures could improve Lawoo's chances of securing PAA. The court order reverses the previous decision to withhold NOCs for Ankush and Dilip's structures. While the court upholds the contravening status of their structures, Lawoo's right to claim PAA for them remains a matter for the Civil Court to decide.
In a nutshell, the court has prioritized securing PAA for all three brothers while allowing Lawoo to pursue his claim in a separate legal proceeding.
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888