Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has held that the right to receive alternate accommodation and transit rent under a redevelopment project vests with the person in possession of the premises, and not necessarily the legal owner.
A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne passed the ruling while modifying a single-judge order in a dispute involving members of the Haldar family and a redevelopment project undertaken by M/s Elite Housing LLP.
While Ritesh Haldar claims ownership of the flat in Spectrum CHS, Khar (West), his sister-in-law Leena Haldar, wife of Rohitesh Haldar, resides there with her children. Ritesh contended that Leena was a “gratuitous licensee” and could not claim rights under the redevelopment agreement.
Leena, through her advocate Nimay Dave, asserted that the flat was her matrimonial home. “She claims that her husband no longer resides with her and that she exclusively occupies the flat along with her children,” the court noted.
On the developer’s plea, the single judge, on April 16, allowed the developer to approach the Court Receiver to execute the tripartite Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) and take possession of the flat. The court also directed that all compensation, including corpus and transit rent, be paid to Leena.
This was challenged by Ritesh and Rohitesh before the division bench.
The division bench modified single judge’s the direction saying: “In absence of any pending litigation regarding ownership, execution of the PAAA with the Court Receiver is unwarranted.” It directed that the PAAA be executed in Ritesh’s name, whose name appears in the society records, but clarified that this would be subject to the claims of ownership raised by his brothers, Rohitesh and Rajesh.
However, the bench reiterated that redevelopment cannot be used as a tool to evict occupants. “Since Leena would be handing over possession of the premises, it is Leena alone who must be put in possession of alternate accommodation,” the court held.
It added, “Transit rent needs to be paid to Leena, who would be dispossessed and needs to make interim arrangement in some other house.”
While Ritesh will receive the corpus compensation, Leena will be paid transit rent and brokerage during the construction period. She will also be handed possession of the new Flat, once ready, subject to the outcome of eviction proceedings pending against her.
Advocate Rohaan Cama appeared for the developer. Advocate Sunita Serrao represented the housing society. Ritesh was represented by advocate Mayur Khandeparkar and Rohitesh by senior advocate Pravin Samdani.
