BHIKSHAPATI MALANNA RASKUNDA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The project in question is the redevelopment of what is known as the Dhobi Ghat at Sat Rasta in Central Mumbai. The three Petitioners are what are called 'rope holders'. They have what are called 'rassi licences' for drying ropes. The prayer in the Petition is essentially to demand compliance with an order of 25/10/2018 but more particularly a demand in prayer clause (b) for arrears of transit rent.

(2.) But the agreement for rope holders was that they would be given not transit rent, and for good reason, for there is no place that will be available to such persons to rent elsewhere in the city. Indeed, not to put too fine a point on it, there is no place in the city quite like the Dhobi Ghat. For this reason, the arrangement was that the developer would explore the option of either an alternative temporary site or transit rent. This was at the time when the project was still in its early stages. Ultimately, these rope holders were to be given space for their traditional activities. If, therefore, all rassi license holders are being given temporary alternative premises, and such temporary alternative space or premises are available for allotment to the Petitioners, there is no enforceable right to transit rent. The Petitioners cannot demand to be placed in a special position different from other similarly placed rassi licensees.

(3.) Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Affidavit in Reply by the developer at pages 155 to 157 read thus: