Maharashtra Housing And Area ... vs State Of Maharashtra

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The Interim Application was filed by MHADA seeking permission to process redevelopment proposals jointly submitted by landlords and tenants with more than 51% consent, arising out of a batch of writ petitions concerning the illegal invocation of Section 79-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 by MHADA's Executive Engineers in respect of buildings not declared dilapidated by the Municipal Corporation under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. A Committee headed by Justice J.P. Devadhar (Retd.) had been appointed by an earlier order dated 28 July 2025 to examine 935 notices issued under Section 79-A found to be contrary to law.

The Committee, noting that certain landlords and more than 51% of tenants had jointly submitted or were willing to submit redevelopment proposals, directed MHADA to seek modification of the order dated 28 July 2025 so that such joint redevelopment proposals could be processed immediately. The Court observed that the prayer as worded was incorrectly framed insofar as it referenced Section 79-A, acceptance of which would be contrary to the earlier Division Bench decisions in Vimalnath Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and Pramod Vishwanath Saraf.

The Court clarified that where there is genuine consent between landlord and tenants, the Section 79-A notice ought not to preclude the parties from proceeding with redevelopment as otherwise permissible in law, particularly under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, and that windows had been kept open in the order dated 28 July 2025 for such situations.

Catchwords: MHADA · Section 79-A · dilapidated buildings · Section 354 Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act · redevelopment · consent of tenants · Development Control Regulations · Regulation 33(7) · Committee · interim application · modification of order