Filing pleas a cheap method to stall projects: Bombay High Court; imposes Rs 5 lakh cost on senior citizen

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has deprecated the practice of filing frivolous petitions against redevelopment projects and said it has increasingly become the cheapest method to stall projects.

A division bench of Justices A S Gadkari and Kamal Khata on November 12 dismissed a petition filed by a man, aged 67, refusing to vacate an 83-year-old bungalow where he has been living as a tenant since 1995.

While imposing a cost of Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner, Khimjibhai Harjivanbhai Patadia, the HC said it hopes this would serve as a deterrent against such frivolous and mischievous petitions.

Claiming tenancy rights, the man alleged that the landlord was attempting to evict him by "hook or crook and by devious means".

The court in its order, a copy of which was made available on Wednesday, dismissed the petition and said it was filed with a view to obstruct the redevelopment and that all the other tenants have vacated the bungalow.

The bench noted that the structure - 'Bubna bungalow ' in Mumbai's Kandivali area - was constructed in 1940 on a land measuring around 4,400 square metres.

"The property in question is situated in a prime location in the city of Mumbai and has huge monetary potential. The petitioner is well aware of this and therefore is trying to create hurdles in the development of the suit property," the HC said.

"There is absolutely no justification for the petitioner, as a tenant, to deprive the landlord of the legitimate fruits of redeveloping his property," it said.

The court said such litigations often amount to a sophisticated form of extortion and there necessarily must be an effective deterrent to such "obstructionist behaviour" by tenants.

"Filing petitions has increasingly become the quickest and cheapest method to stall redevelopment projects, with little or no downside for tenants. It is at a meagre expense - a calculated gamble," it said.

While imposing an exemplary cost of Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner, the HC said, "High-stake cases warrant high deterrent costs to discourage frivolous and mischievous petitions. Without such measures, the judicial process risks becoming a cheap tool for unscrupulous litigants seeking to exploit it for personal gain."

Patadia had challenged the decision taken by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), declaring the bungalow he has been a tenant in since 1995 as dilapidated and to be demolished.

In September, Patadia was issued a notice directing him to vacate the premises so that the structure could be demolished.

Patadia questioned the TAC report and sought the court to appoint an independent structural auditor to assess the building's actual condition.

The court in its order said such petitions are filed with the sole intention of delaying the redevelopment of old and/or dilapidated structures, driven by ulterior motives for better monetary terms from the landlords/developers.

"This is particularly egregious given that landlords bear a statutory obligation to maintain the building, with criminal consequences for any failure to act," it observed.

If the tenant succeeds with the plea, then the rewards are substantial, and if dismissed, then the financial loss is negligible, the HC noted.

The delay caused by filing such pleas can impose a significant financial burden on landlords or developers, the court said.

"In many cases, developers are forced to capitulate due to these pressures, making such actions an attractive proposition for tenants, where redevelopment projects are often worth crores of rupees," it said.

The court questioned what was the harm if a tenant received a better and newly redeveloped premise in exchange for a premise in an 83-year-old structure.

"The logic behind resisting redevelopment is puzzling. This behaviour strongly suggests there is something more than meets the eye. No person, we believe, would prefer to remain in an old, dilapidated building willing to incur recurring maintenance costs every year, rather than opting for redevelopment," it said.

No court can be permitted to become a tool for tenants to obstruct the genuine redevelopment efforts of property owners, the bench said.

Unfortunately, cases like this where petitions are filed and projects are delayed have become routine, the HC added.