Transit Buildings Inherently Temporary Structures, Cannot Be Repaired Or Made Permanent: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that transit buildings cannot be repaired or made permanent since they are inherently temporary and designed for short-term use.The division bench of Justice G.S Patel and Justice Kamal Khata added that these buildings were not subject to structural audit regulations.“Transit buildings are by the very nature of their construction and by structural design temporary and not meant to last beyond three to five years. There is no question of repairs or of these buildings being made permanent. Even the planning permissions that are granted for transit buildings are not granted in the same manner or subject to the same stringent requirements as they are for permanent constructions…the attempt to apply the law on the TAC in structural audits to transit buildings is not only an inversion of law but is a perversion of the law.”The observation came in a writ petition filed by four residents against demolition notices for a transit building constructed in 2006. The bench found that the buildings were built with a life of five years. It was held that the MCGM policy providing for a structural audit and reference to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for dilapidated buildings does not apply to transit buildings.The court also criticised the petitioners on the transit building in Mahim for stalling its demolition and consequently the redevelopment of the original structures on the land.“We do not know what has happened to the people of this city that they no longer have the slightest concern about their own neighbours and others in their society. There are dozens of others who are out on transit rent or in transit accommodation and are forced to stay there indefinitely. Already, five years are lost, possibly for no fault of these tenants; but their continued obstruction only heaps on further delay”, the court remarked.103 persons including the petitioners used to reside in a MHADA chawl in Mahim. Due to the redevelopment of the chawl, they were given accommodation in a transit building.The petitioners approached the court in 2018, alleging abrupt disconnection of water and electricity to their premises in the transit building. They had received notices under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act), stating that the structures they occupied were dilapidated and required demolition. A vacation bench in 2018 passed an interim order restoring the electricity and water supply and allowing them to continue occupying the premises at their own risk. This order was continued from time to time.The matter remained stagnant until September 29, 2022, when the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) sought vacation of the 2018 interim order. This application shed light on the fact that the occupants were not in the original structures but in a transit building.On August 24, 2023, the court noted that the petition proceeded on the basis that the petitioners and other residents were owners of the land. The court said that this was misleading as it implied that occupants had the legal right to initiate redevelopment. The court further pointed out that important details, such as the petitioners' status as tenants in the chawls, were omitted. The property's actual owners weren’t even joined as respondents until they intervened in the case, the court said.Out of the original 103 occupants, only 18, including the petitioners, remain in the transit building. The court noted that 63 were off-site in MHADA camps, 10 non-cessed tenants arranged private accommodations, and 12 non-cessed tenants shifted to alternate accommodations.The court expressed its concern for the delay caused by the petitioners' actions and highlighted the jeopardy posed to other tenants' futures. It emphasized that the petitioners could not represent others and rejected arguments about tenant rights over redevelopment. The court set a deadline of September 26, 2023, for the complete evacuation of the building.On August 24, Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat for the owners of the land presented the court with proposals for permanent alternate accommodations for the 18 remaining residents on par with the others, which involved ownership-based redeveloped homes. In the meantime, the option of shifting to transit accommodation or accepting transit rent was presented. On August 25, the court asked Kamat to come up with a working method for this to ensure transparency and fairness in the choices presented to the 18 tenants.Appearance:Advocates AM Saraogi and Anand Mishra for the Petitioner. Advocates Anoop Patil and Vandana Mahadik, for MCGM. Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat with Advocates Mohit Khanna, Dipti Sawant, Priyanka Desai and Aditya Lele for the owners of the land. Additional Government Pleader Abhay Patki for the State. Advocates Rajesh Datar and Deepak Devkar for 14 other residents of the transit building.Case Title: Mohan Yeshwant Padawe & Ors v. State Of Maharashtra & OrsCase No: Writ Petition No....

Transit Buildings Inherently Temporary Structures, Cannot Be Repaired Or Made Permanent: Bombay High Court

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags