PANDURANG VISHNU DEVRUKHAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this court, an affidavit has been filed by the Administrative Officer (Estates) N/West Ward of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. In this affidavit, the Municipal Corporation has, apart from justifying the notice issued under section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as "the MMC Act"), stated that in all there are 824 tenements to be relocated, from which 60 are in possession of the petitioners and 20 are in possession of municipal employees in building nos. 1 and 2, and the balance 744 tenements in building nos. 1 to 28. These buildings situated at Municipal Colony 348/396, Vikhroli Parksite, Vikhroli (West). There is phase-wise development programme of all these buildings, but presently, each one of them will have to be vacated. The Petitioners are municipal tenants.

(2.) The only argument canvassed before us today is that the Municipal Corporation has offered temporary alternate accommodation to the municipal tenants at Evershine Building at Mahul, Chembur, Mumbai. That accommodation is in a highly polluted area and not fit for human habitation. There is a likelihood of the petitioners suffering respiratory diseases and serious ailments should they be forced to be relocated to Mahul. Therefore, alteration is sought to the existing policy to the extent that in lieu of this temporary alternate accommodation, monthly amount should be paid so that the petitioners make their alternate arrangements. They will obtain accommodation temporarily on rent and the rend/compensation should be paid month to month.

(3.) On repeated questioning, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was unable to point out any statutory provision which would enable the municipal tenants to cause structural repairs to be carried out on their own to the municipal buildings. He was also unable to point out any judgment or order of this court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which would enable the municipal tenants to undertake structural repairs to municipal tenements, although the rent control legislation is inapplicable to these premises. No such judgment or statutory provision having brought to our notice, our next query was whether in this statutory scheme there is any provision mandating the Municipal Corporation to provide temporary alternate accommodation. The argument by way of answer is that there may not be such statutory prescription, but now there is a scheme evolved. In terms of that scheme, the temporary alternate accommodation is to be offered pending redevelopment at the very site. Since that is offered at Mahul, the municipal tenants can refuse that offer and demand payment of monthly compensation. Our next query was, whether this monthly compensation is inbuilt or inherent in the scheme which is evolved by the Municipal Corporation for temporary shifting of tenants of municipal tenements. The answer is that there may not be, but once the municipal tenements or the alternate accommodation offered at Mahul is unfit for human accommodation and habitation and the area itself is not safe for human habitation, then we must direct this alternate course.