Legal Analysis on Building Redevelopment Dispute

Delve into the intricate legal analysis conducted by the court in a contentious building redevelopment dispute. This summary highlights the nuanced perspectives and considerations that influenced the court’s decisions, shedding light on the legal intricacies involved in such cases.


  • On 29.9.2020, M/s Shetgiri and Associates, Architects suggested that the structure could last 5 to 6 more years with repairs and regular maintenance.
  • On 24.11.2020, the Bombay High Court allowed Respondent No.1 to begin removing an adjoining wall with the help of the architects at his own expense and risk.
  • The removal work had to be supervised by Corporation officials to prevent damage to the Appellant’s property.
  • The appeal challenges the High Court’s decision in the writ petition filed by Respondent No.1 regarding the removal of the wall.
  • The Appellant owns a property in Chembur, Mumbai, and the removal of the wall is related to this property.
  • The premises in question consists of 3 three-storied interlinked structures built in 1930.
  • Structural Audit Reports classified the buildings into C1, C2-A, C2-B, and C3 categories based on their condition.
  • Structures interlinked, so repair of one would affect the stability of adjacent structures.
  • Notices issued under Section 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act for evacuation and demolition due to dangerous conditions.
  • Technical Advisory Committee confirmed critical condition of the buildings, leading to C1 category classification.
  • Attempts made to urge occupants, including Respondent No.1, to vacate for safety.
  • Challenges made by Respondent No.1 against demolition orders.
  • Contradictory reports led to different opinions about repairs and safety of the structures.
  • Appeal against City Civil Court order rejected, affirming need for evacuation and demolition.
  • No maintenance carried out for years, making repair economically unviable.
  • Technical Advisory Committee declared buildings dangerous and over 90 years old, falling under C-1 category.

Also Read: Challenging Conviction: Legal Analysis Spotlight


  • Damaged structural members like load bearing walls and its plaster, brick pillars, beams, and slabs need immediate repairs.
  • External walls should be repaired with PCC bedding and damp-proof course to protect from subsoil action.
  • Propping and barricading should be provided during repairs.
  • The report by Shetgiri and Associates highlighted damages to external walls and RCC elements, indicating urgent repairs were necessary.
  • The report specifically noted limitations and exclusions regarding the scope of the audit.
  • The court erred in not considering the limitations of the report and making a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports.
  • The High Court’s decision to direct removal of a wall was criticized, especially given conflicting reports from other architects.
  • Any delay in initiating restoration could lead to structural failure with serious consequences for occupants and passersby.
  • The High Court should not have adjudicated on disputed technical facts in the case.
  • Regular maintenance by the concerned authority is advised to prevent severe damage in the future.
  • The report is a preliminary structural health check and not a stability certificate for the building.
  • Structural repairs should be undertaken under the supervision of a registered structural engineer.
  • The age of the structure, over 45 years, indicates it has outlived its economic life, raising concerns about its structural condition and potential risks.

Also Read: Analysis of Contempt Charges for Breach of Undertaking


  • The petitioner has entered into MOU with 15 out of 24 tenants for accepting alternate accommodation and vacating the premises.
  • The appellant undertakes to pay eleven months’ rent in advance by post-dated cheque.
  • The appellant guarantees completion of redevelopment work within 2 years, with provision to pay rent/transit accommodation in case of delays due to natural calamities or uncontrollable factors.
  • MCGM issued orders to vacate the building, protecting the area of Respondent No.1 and other tenants.
  • Appellant to provide alternative accommodation or rent if Respondent No.1 does not accept the rent offer.
  • Appellant to provide area equivalent to Respondent No.1’s current occupation after redevelopment, free of charge.
  • Appellant to pay extra rent for delays in redevelopment due to natural calamities, strikes, etc.
  • Deposit amount for water tax, property tax & sewerage tax for redevelopment to be covered.
  • All interim orders are vacated, and the appeal is allowed with specific terms outlined.
  • Appellant to provide monthly rent for the authorized legal area occupied by Respondent No.1 during the redevelopment process.
  • Appellant to provide advanced rent and additional charges for freight.
  • 15 out of 24 tenants have vacated premises, awaiting approval for redevelopment from competent authority.
  • Permission, no-objection certificates, and legal actions for redevelopment to be handled by the appellant.
  • Newly constructed flat to be provided to Respondent No.1 post-redevelopment, with no charges for the accommodation.
  • Appellant to bear all costs for redevelopment without charging any fees to Respondent No.1.
  • Monthly rent at a specified rate to be provided to Respondent No.1.
  • Summary of rights and obligations outlined for both parties regarding redevelopment and accommodation.

Also Read: Land Dispute: Court’s Analysis on Condonation of Delay


Case Number: C.A. No.-002848-002848 / 2021

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *