Court cases have become a cheap way to stop redevelopment: High Court

Mumbai: Condemning the practice of filing frivolous petitions against redevelopment projects, the Bombay High Court said it is becoming the cheapest way to stop a project. The court on November 12 rejected a petition filed by a 67-year-old man demanding that he not vacate the 83-year-old bungalow, a tenant since 1995.

The court ordered petitioner Khimjibhai Harjeevanbhai Patadia to pay Rs. While imposing a fine of Rs 5 lakh, the court said that it is hoped that such a meaningless and frivolous petition will set an example for Kanrana.

Claiming tenancy rights, the petitioner alleged that the landlord was trying to evict him at any cost.

The court rejected the application saying that all the tenants had vacated the bungalows and the application was filed to stop the redevelopment.

The court said that in 1940, Baba’s bungalow in Kandivali was of 4400 square meters. Meter was built in the area. This property is situated at a prime location and is like a gold rush. The High Court said that the petitioner is aware of this and wants to hinder the development of the property.

The petitioner as a tenant has no right to deprive the landlord of the benefit of redevelopment of his property. Such applications are a mild form of extortion and it is necessary to effectively stop such obstructive behavior of the tenant. The court said it has become a cheap way to stall redevelopment projects by making applications that do not harm tenants and remain a gamble of calculation.

The court said that a higher penalty is necessary to prevent frivolous arguments in cases involving large amounts of money. If such measures are not taken, the judicial process will become a cheap way for claimants to commit fraud for personal gain.

In September, a notice was sent to the landlord asking him to vacate the premises so that the building could be constructed. Patadia questioned the TAC report and asked the court to have independent structural auditor Neemi determine the condition of the building.

There is likely to be some ulterior motive behind the application. The court said, no one would like to live in an old dilapidated house. The court said that the courts cannot be allowed to become a weapon for tenants to block really necessary redevelopment projects.