The petitioner in the case, a city resident, was currently living in transit accommodation provided by the builder and moved the court after the builder allegedly urged him to take possession of his allotted flat in order to get him to vacate the transit accommodation.
The developer claimed that most buildings in the project, including the one where the petitioner was allotted a flat, were complete and ready for occupation.
It was then informed by the other residents that the building did not have potable municipal water supply but the developer was providing water through tankers and Bisleri jars.
The Court said that this gesture of goodwill on part of the developer could not be termed “water supply” to a residential building.
The Court also expressed disappointment at BMC’s method of administration of civic affairs and directed it to formulate a policy to protect the interests of residents.
The part occupancy certificate was suspended until the developer made a provision for laying pipelines for a water connection.
Source: Barandbench
