Buildings don't tell you when they'll collapse: Bombay high court

Buildings don't tell you when they'll collapse: Bombay high court

MUMBAI: Dilapidated buildings don't tell when they will collapse, observed the Bombay high court on Wednesday while asking a section of residents of a building in Lower Parel why they have refused to vacate it. A division bench of Justice V M Kanade and Justice M S Sonak heard a petition by Hare Krishna Builders alleging inaction by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada) to evict the non-cooperating tenants of a 90-year-old dilapidated building, which is likely to collapse. The petition said while 70 per cent tenants of Deen Building had vacated the premises, 39 tenants were not cooperating with the builder. The court had earlier directed Mhada to hear the developer and the non-cooperating tenants. On Wednesday, Mhada advocate told the court that the hearing was complete and an order had been passed. But he sought time saying its joint chief officer of the repair board was not available. The 39 tenants intervened saying they wished to be heard in the matter. The judges questioned why they were not vacating the building. They also referred to the Kalwa building crash on November 18 saying it was a "fortunate" escape because of a vigilant resident. "All the tenants were saved because of an alert tenant who came home late. In such cases the building is not going to tell when it will collapse," remarked Justice Kanade. The court was informed by the advocate of the 39 tenants that the developer did not comply with condition of intimation of disapproval and did not construct the post office which was supposed to come up on the plot. "You are not worried about your life but of the post office," said Justice Kanade. The judges said all issues would be examined in their entirety and adjourned the hearing toDecember 3.

Source: The Times of India

Bailiff of Bandra Small causes court looses summons...is is part of greater design

Our family is a owner of a building known as Saburi, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz east, Mumbai 400055. There is an old tenant in our building known as Mrs. Bina Chowdhuri. All her sons are well settled and live separately for decades.  She had more properties in Santacruz east which she sold years back for premium.  She has substantial bank investments and savings.

Presently she has huge property of Wadia’s (about 3000sq mts approx) and a bungalow in Vakola area besides she is tenant in our above building. She is occupying certain premises on first floor of our building  but filed a case in the year 1990 on us claiming tenancy rights to terrace etc.. Her advocate is very costly, very powerful; keeps filing unnecessary applications, courts practically are run to his whims and wishes. So 23 years have passed and I find no end to the case in my life time due to strong arms of Advocate Amin Nathani and his smartf Bandra Small  delaying tactics.

My son has become coowner of this building in place of my late beloved mother as per her last will and probate.

He is B.E ( 1^st Class Mumbai university, passed several exams of share market, AMFI, cleared International  CFA level 2 ) and working for a corporate house for over 4 years.  Now he wishes to start his own office.

So he filed a case of eviction for personal bonafide use on this lady who has kept the premises under lock and key for years. Her rent is Rs 138/- p.m. only.

To begin with many advocates refused to take up case if Ad Nathani was to represent the opposite party. Some how when an advocate agreed then due to several reasons from both side filing was delayed. Ultimately case was filed but bailiff came on a day close to case date so daughter of Mrs. Bina Chowdhuri refused to accept the summons. Process for second service was done and was assigned to a bailiff on 23^rd October 2013. When I enquired on 16^th Nov. 2013 with bailiff dept of Small causes court, Bandra I was told bailiff has lost the summons and earlier service refusal report. I wonder if this is a beginning  of delaying tactics.

Earlier in Bandra small causes court files have been  misplaced, 5 years my application for expediting was pending  where as in her appeal judge gave order for expediting on the basis of age in short title, on her request court appointed one after another court commissioner to inspect the building but  either  they were dead, migrated away from Mumbai, retired etc and thus wasted years. Finally one CC was appointed who went over board and instead of just inspecting and giving report on condition of building he fixed the responsibility of landlord to carry out heavy repairs on terrace and how to carry out same. Without acknowledging the fact that this tenant had taken injunction against landlord prohibiting entry to the terrace so all these years landlord could not carry our repairs and tenant on purpose neglected same.

So this is what is in store when you are a litigant in India and especially in Small causes court.

Recently in another case my advocate surprisingly asked for an adjournment as Ad Nathani was not there where as he is supposed to press for going ahead as matter is 23 years old. Ad Nathani or his clients never give written application for adjournments.

In another matter Appeal court fixed a very low mesne profit so thru RTI I applied for copies of various orders passed in similar matter in same court but court is evasive in giving same and made me run pillar to post  citing technical ( nonexistent ground).

In sessions court PP Chavan remained silent but advocate of accused shouts, growls and Blames and  terrifies the victim and the lady Judge Joshi used to quietly witness  the onslaught on crying innocent girl.

So much so today as leaving for outstation.

But I will be back with my experience in courts.

 

 

 

 

 

Bombay high court has directed a Juhu tenant to vacate her flat

Shibu Thomas TNN 

Mumbai: The Bombay high court has directed a Juhu tenant, the lone occupant of a dilapidated building, to vacate her flat within one month. The tenant, Esther Manickam, who has been paying a monthly rent of Rs 50 for decades, was offered Rs 1 crore by the owner to move out of old building but she had refused. 
    Justice Anoop Mohta refused to grant the tenant any relief against the demolition notice served by the BMC for the old building which has been declared dangerous.
    “The structure if it is required to be demolished and as except Esther all have already vacated, there is no reason that the building in question (should) be repaired by the owner only to permit her to occupy one flat in question,” said Justice Mohta. The judge cited earlier orders of the court that allowed “the corporation to evict occupier/owner of dilapidated building even by force”. 
    The court said the tenant’s offer to repair the premises was of “no assistance as it would cause further complications and especially when no one else is occupying the other portions”. 
    The court said it cannot direct that the building be maintained just because a lone opposing tenant wants to continue to occupy a dangerous building. 
    Esther, who has been staying in the Juhu flat measuring 340 square feet for decades and paying a monthly rent of Rs 50, refused to move out of the building despite the landlord’s offer of Rs 1 crore. ‘Forcing owner to maintain bldg for one resident unjust’ 
Mumbai: The BMC had earlier this year served a demolition notice on a Juhu building which had been classified as dangerous. A report by VJTI also said that repairs were not viable for the old building. But the tenant, Esther Manickam, had rejected the Rs 1 crore offer by the owner to vacate and insisted on a flat in a new building on the same premises. The landlord and the developer refused to give her that saying 13 other tenants of the building had accepted the same offer. 
    The Bombay HC said it could not overlook the expert’s opinion and said that Esther’s claims in her applications were “contradictory, inconsistent and in fact self destructive”. 
    “Esther, though at her risk is occupying the premises alone and compelling the landlord/owner to maintain the whole premises/building in spite of the clear offer given to her, is unjustifiable,” said the judge. 
    “The owner of the property is entitled to deal with the property. Even otherwise, tenants cannot object to transfer and/or even to create thirdparty rights or interest in such property by the landlord. The owner, therefore, if he wants to develop the property, but for want of insistence to have permanent alternate accommodation in the same premises, (and hurdles are created) to the whole project, is entitled to oppose the action of the tenant,” the court said. 
    “The costs already incurred by paying a huge amount just cannot be overlooked merely because one tenant is opposing to develop and/or not permitting the owner to develop the property.” The HC said that the owner of the property cannot be compelled to give a specific offer to a tenant. 
    The HC refused to give Esther any reprieve from the demolition proceedings and allowed her four weeks’ time to vacate her flat on the condition that she files an undertaking to move out.

Staff of Saburi landlord maintaining Garden in front of Saburi

Tenants OF Saburi @ Vakola Bridge the rent act affected building

WHY BUILDINGS ARE FALLING:

Tenants OF Saburi @ Vakola Bridge

1.Mrs. Bina Chowdhuri: Rent Rs.138/- p.m. Is tenant of premises on First Floor. Keeping shabbily her premises. Illegally claims terrace. Spends lacs on one of the costliest advocate for delaying, stalling and harassing. Has successful sons in legal profession, corporate etc.. Is also having several other properties and huge bank balance.

2.Dattatraya Pan Bidi Shop: Rent Rs.40/-  P.M. .Four earning sons. Huge Monthly Income. But stopped paying meager rent for fancy as knows that landlord will have to spend life and huge fees on advocates if and when he decides to recover rent.

3. Kishansingh Chauhan was a staff of Shri M M Tholiya. He illegally took over a Jawahar Hotel and runs. He keeps offering free Tea and food to local politicians, goons, BMC staff etc and manages to run unlicensed Hotel.

Landlord pays BMC Property tax now per year Rs 13338/- besides that we pay land revenue tax, common maintenance and huge fees on advocates who in turn get us nothing except dates.

You can not find a single paisa beautification efforts from tenants who misuse and over use premises for decades. ..Alok Tholiya

Rent act, appeasement on cast basis, etc are populist measures for creating Vote banks.

AAP volunteers of Vakola , Santacruz east on 15th Aug. 2013 after flag hoisting

In front of saburi, and AAP office @ Vakola Bridge

If u ever thought that BJP is disciplined party who loves to respect law and high court order then see this. At Vakola Bridge , Santacruz East they have forcibly put up a religious banner of their party . And same is a story of RPI whose workers have put up a RPI flag on a pole which local people had installed to hoist national flag. Whah kya dadagiri hei?