The Bombay high court has pulled up the BMC for requisitioning buildings in redevelopment projects for use as quarantine centres when their original tenants were awaiting the new homes in “pathetic circumstances”. It called the BMC’s move “absolutely unjust and unfair”.
The HC was hearing half a dozen petitions filed by Sahyog Homes Ltd and others challenging the BMC move to requisitioning private buildings. Sahyog counsel Nilesh Gala said the BMC had sealed its 22-storeyed SRA building in Andheri (W) to use nine storeys as a quarantine facility.
Advocate Karl Tamboly who appeared for a Sea Green cooperative housing society in Worli said while original occupants were waiting since 2007 when the old building constructed in 1959 was demolished, the multi storeyed redevelopment building awaiting OC, was requisitioned by the BMC.
The strong words from the HC comes days after residents of a Runwal complex in Diva clashed with police over plans to take over some of the buildings for isolating people.
The HC has adjourned matters challenging the requisition and ordered status quo.
Scant regard for those sans roof over heads, says HC
A bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and S P Tavade on Friday directed the BMC to file an affidavit by June 9. The civic body must give details of houses, buildings and other places where it has “started making or has made arrangements for quarantine facilities’’. It must disclose bed capacity and individuals housed there too. The HC noted that the BMC, though directed by it on May 22 to file an affidavit, had not done so.
The HC observed that hundreds of families that had handed over original tenements or flats to builders by entering into agreements for redevelopment resided in transit camps or other temporary tenanted premises for which builders promised to pay rent. The judges said some builders had taken a decade to complete construction and had even stopped paying monthly compensation to the original tenants, who “virtually landed on streets’’. It added that several people had filed petitions against builders to ensure immediate completion of projects and “restoration of roofs over their heads’’. While orders had been passed to ensure work was completed, occupancy certificates were awaited in several cases, it said.
“But despite pathetic circumstances of such families who are longing to secure legitimate roofs over their heads, MCGM, under the garb of its May 31, 2020, circular started requisitioning buildings for quarantine and isolation facilities. Consequently, the original tenants/owners were deprived of their residences,’’ the HC said, adding that the BMC’s action “prima facie appears to be… done with scant regard or consideration to plight of those who have no roof to call their own”.
In a separate contempt petition filed in one matter, advocate Vivek Shukla for petitioner, Mohammed Umatia said developer Neelkamal Realtors Tower Pvt Ltd refused to provide transit accommodation though a portion of their building fell. Girish Godbole counsel for Neelkamal that part of the transit building collapsed and 11 tenants were shifted. Godbole also said that the BMC has provided alternate accommodation to four these in a nearby school and if the balance seven are not, the builder would. The HC then directed that the builder provide the accommodation to these seven tenants or pay their monthly compensation.
