The Bombay HC in the case of Raj Ahuja v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has observed that “It is a settled position in law that the interest of the minority occupants or the tenants cannot be opposed to the interest of the majority occupants, as also such persons cannot foist on the owners a delay in commencement of the redevelopment work, resulting in the project cost being increased, which would be seriously prejudicial to the owners or the developers and above all, the majority of the occupants.”
It is pertinent to note that according to the Development Control and Promotions Regulation – 2034 (DCPR-2034), the Consent of 51% to 70% of tenants was required for the redevelopment of dilapidated buildings. The civic body had directed the developer to get the consent of 100% of tenants if it wanted approval for the redevelopment, known as the commencement certificate (CC). It was contended by the developers that imposing such a condition is against the interest and rights of the developers. Getting consent from 100% of tenants will always not be possible.
A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and RN Laddha further observed that “They cannot now resist a Permanent Alternative Accommodation Agreement (PAA) offered by the owner to the majority of the tenants, for a reason that the PAA does not suit their requirements, or for some other reasons they are not agreeable to enter into a PAA, as in the present case. This would amount to few tenants bringing the entire redevelopment to a standstill, by not consenting to a permanent alternate accommodation or by raising disputes.”