29 wp 8851 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8851 OF 2026 Meenaben Bhupendra Bharucha and Ors. ... Petitioners versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Nirman Sharma with Ms. Uma Sharma, Mr. Karl Vatcha i/by Dharam and Co., for Petitioners. Ms. Manisha Jagtap, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shradha Achliya, Mr. Bhavik Manek i/by Mr. Sharad Wakchoure, for Respondent No.4. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 24 AUGUST 2026 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. In view of the limited nature of the controversy, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final disposal. 3. The Petitioners were the MHADA certified tenants / occupants of their respective commercial premises in a building known as ‘Purshottam Bhavan’ situated at C.S.No.1735 of Bhuleshwar Division. On 10 August 2016, a part of the said building collapsed, rendering the tenants / occupants thereof, including the Petitioners, homeless / deprived of the premises for the commercial activities. Respondent No.4 – developer got executed from the majority of the members / occupants of the said building a Memorandum of SSP 1/6 2026:BHC-AS:35339-DB 29 wp 8851 of 2026.doc Understanding (MOU) on 27 October 2016. 4. Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (R2) issued a NOC in favour of the Respondent No.4 developer for the then proposed redevelopment of the said building and certified the tenancy and occupancy of the tenants / occupants of the said building, including the Petitioners. 5. Respondent No.4 allegedly committed default in compliance with the terms of the MOU. There were arrears of transit rent agreed to be paid by the Respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 allegedly unilaterally and arbitrarily re- located a part of permanent alternate accommodation of many ground floors tenants / occupants on the higher floors, instead of the agreed first and second floors. Respondent No.4, without resolving those issues, began to insist upon the tenants / occupants to sign the letters of no objection in favour of Respondent No.2 for issuance of letter of NOC to Respondent No.3 for applying for Occupation Certificate. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 3, therefore, submitted a joint representation / complaint against Respondent No.4. 6. By an order dated 11 March 2026, the Chief Officer of M.B. R. and R. Board (R2) directed the NOC holder – Respondent No.4, inter alia, to pay rent to the tenants / occupants whose shops / residences were certified with carpet area of loft/mezzanine floor and if the NOC holder provided two different shops due to planning constraints, then NOC holder should execute separate Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (“PAAA”) for two SSP 2/6 29 wp 8851 of 2026.doc allotted premises. The NOC holder was also directed to pay rent to the tenants/occupants as per the terms of the Agreement / MOU dated 27 October 2016 including Covid-19 Pandemic period till handing over the rehab tenement after obtaining OC from MCGM. 7. Being aggrieved, Respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before the Vice President & CEO, MHADA (R3). By an order dated 16 June 2026, Respondent No.3 was persuaded to modify the order passed by the Chief Officer of M.B.R. and R Board (R2). The NOC holder was directed to pay the transit rent to the concerned tenants / occupants as per registered PAAA, and in regard to the rent for the Covid-19 period, the NOC holder and the tenants / occupants were given liberty to arrive at a mutual settlement. 8. The Petitioners assert that, by the impugned order, the Respondent No.3 has given vague and ambiguous directions and left the litigating parties to arrive at terms, by unjustifiably setting aside the order passed by the Chief Officer, M.B.R. and R. Board (R2). Thus, the Petitioners were constrained to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 9. An affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.4. 10. After the matter was heard for sometime, it appeared that the core controversy between the parties revolved around the area in the occupation of the respective Petitioners in respect of which the transit rent was to be paid by Respondent No.4, and the liability to pay the rent for the period covered by SSP 3/6 29 wp 8851 of 2026.doc Covid-19 Pandemic. 11. Though the parties were at issue over the liability to pay transit rent for the area of loft / mezzanine floor, yet, the MOU executed between the parties on 27 October 2016 puts the controversy at rest. Under clause 3(b)(ii), it was agreed, by and between the parties, that the transit rent shall be paid by Respondent No.4 for the commercial shops @ 160/- per sq.ft. per month of the existing carpet area. Furthermore, in the PAAA executed by and between Respondent No.4 and the tenants/occupants, they declared and confirmed that they were the monthly tenant/occupants in respect of the shop/commercial premises admeasuring a particular sq.ft. carpet area. It, thus, appears that the developer (R4) and the tenants / occupants had agreed that the transit rent shall be paid for the carpet area and not the area covered by the loft / mezzanine floor. 12. In regard to the liability to pay transit rent for the period covered by Covid-19 pandemic, the Chief Officer, M.B.R and R Board (R2) was of the view that there was no clause in PAAA to exempt the Respondent No.4 from the liability to pay the rent due to force majeure. The developer had agreed to pay transit accommodation charges to the tenants/occupants as mutually agreed, upto the date of handing over possession of the new premises. 13. Respondent No.3, in contrast, considered it appropriate not to pass a specific order in regard to the liability to pay transit rent for the Covid-19 SSP 4/6 29 wp 8851 of 2026.doc pandemic, but keep it open for the developer and the tenants to arrive at a mutual settlement. 14. First and foremost, the said dispensation lacks the essential elements of a definitive decision. Thus, Respondent No. 3, could not have interfered with the reasoned order passed by the Chief Officer, M.B.R and R Board (R2) directing payment of transit rent for the Covid-19 pandemic period. The order passed by Respondent No.3 manifests lack of consideration to the consequences that would ensue and the chaotic situation that would emerge upon the inability of the parties to arrive at a mutual settlement, which was distinct possibility given the stand of the parties. Thus, Respondent No.3 could not have left the issue open ended. 15. The reasons ascribed by the Chief Officer, M.B.R and R Board (R2), even otherwise, cannot be said to be unsustainable. If on account of Covid- 19 Pandemic situation, the loss was to fall, between the developer and the tenants/occupants, the burden ought to fall upon the developer (R4). The direction to pay transit rent for the Covid-19 Pandemic period was, thus, unassailable. 16. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, also raised the issue of escalation in the rate at which the transit rent was to be paid for the commercial tenants for the third year. However, as it has emerged that no other tenant has been paid transit rent at the enhanced rate, and the scheme SSP 5/6 29 wp 8851 of 2026.doc is almost ready and awaits grant of OC only, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer to direct the Respondent No.4 to pay the transit rent for the third year at the enhanced rate. 17. The Writ Petition, thus, stands partly allowed in the following terms : (i) The Respondent No.4 shall execute separate PAAA in the event two different shops/units are allotted to the Petitioners – tenants/occupants. (ii) Respondent No.4 shall pay the transit rent to the Petitioners in accordance with the MOU for the Covid-19 Pandemic period as well. (iii) The order dated 16 June 2026 passed by the Respondent No.3 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The Writ Petition stands disposed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 6/6 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 28/08/2026 17:39:29