The grievance by the tenants was that they had not been provided with a permanent alternate accommodation before issuing eviction notices.
The Court had, in 2018, permitted them to continue staying in the structure at their risk.
BMC filed the present application seeking vacation of that order and directions to the tenants to evict the structures.
The Court noted that unlike old structures, the present structure which the civic body was seeking to vacate was a new structure temporarily built as a transit accommodation for the tenants.
The tenants were promised redevelopment by the owner. The old structure was torn down and the present structure was constructed till a more permanent alternate structure could be built.
The Court took exception to the tenants’ concern of where they would go if evicted from the temporary structure.
“The MCGM does not tell us where these tenants are supposed to go if reliefs are granted. Presumably, they are to be thrown on to the streets of the city and left to fend for themselves. The MCGM has sufficient power and authority to take action against the 4th Respondent developer and to compel it to complete the project for which it got sanction. There is no indication in the Interim Application that the MCGM has done anything in that direction,” the Court held.
The Court also did not agree with BMC’s submission that the structure was dilapidated as there were many such buildings which were dilapidated.
“We are yet to see this level of enthusiasm in litigation from the MCGM in regard to other buildings that are perhaps even older and certainly far more dilapidated,” the Bench remarked, rejecting the application.
Source: Barandbench
