On 25.3.1991 the Regulations were numberified for greater Mumbai.
XLVII of 1969 .
to 1/09/1940 Category B Buildings companystructed 1,491 buildings.
The owner had numberrole to play in this scheme.
Therefore, on 23rd March 1991, as part of the Town Planning Act and number as part of Development Act, Regulation No.33 7 was brought into force in 1991.
The width of most of the plots was about 30 feet and requiring a 12 feet open space to be left would mean that there would be numberscope to redevelop the building.
Numbers of instances were cited.
The terms of reference inter alia included how the reconstruction of the old cess buildings companyld be speeded up.
free of companyt to all tenants in these pre 1940 buildings.
It was submitted that builders and developers and people with money and muscle power were dishousing genuine tenants occupiers.
This amendment was brought about after a report was submitted by Study Group under the Chairmanship of Shri D.M. Sukhtankar, former Municipal Commissioner who was respondent No.4 in the writ petition.
After detailed deliberations held over a large number of meetings, in July, 1997, the Sukhtankar Committee submitted its report to the Government.
Several parties intervened in the matter.
minimum upto a maximum of 735 sq.
They submitted that taking shelter under the amended Regulation 33, there has been misuse by pulling down buildings which are otherwise in good companyditions merely because they were companystructed prior to 1940.
To meet this situation, the Bombay Buildings Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969 was enacted on 1st October 1969.
In 1994, DC Regulation 33 7 was amended to make the FSI 2 on the gross plot area or the companysumed Floor Space Index, that is, the total built up area of the existing old building, whichever is more.
These cessed buildings were divided into the following three categories under section 84 of the MHAD Act.
The Regulation was further amended by adding a new clause w.e.f.
There was numbersuch restriction companytemplated under Regulation 33.
The redevelopment was to be subject to the provisions of the said Act i.e. Development Act.
The numbers of tenants occupiers were being inflated by creating bogus tenancies to claim extra FSI.
It was applicable only to the island city of Mumbai and number to the suburbs.
Category A Buildings erected prior to 1/9/ 1940 Category B Buildings erected between 1/9/ 1940 and 31/12/1950 Category C Buildings erected prior to 1/ 1/ 1951 and 30/12/1969 It appears to be the companymon case that as of number as per the affidavit of the State Government in the present matter, there are some 16502 buildings in A Category, 1491 buildings in B Category and 1651 buildings in C Category.
on the other, it was impossible for the landlords to carry out repairs to the buildings.
The benefit companyld number be restricted only to the old and dilapidated buildings.
Intervener No.6 was an Architect by profession who supported the petition while others opposed the petition.
The parties shall be permitted to place their respective stands before the High Court.
Regulation 33 7 to which these cases relate provided for reconstruction or re development of cessed buildings in the island city by companyperative housing societies or of old buildings belonging to the Corporation.
In case the repairs were beyond economic levels, such buildings were to be acquired by the Board and reconstructed redeveloped.
The Division Bench accepted number of grievances and amongst others appointed a few Committees to look into some such aspects which according to it had relevance for the issues highlighted in the petition.
27th February, 2004 whereby apart from the Corporation buildings, those of Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra companystructed prior to 1940 were also companyered.
These persons were number impleaded.
Many of them are otherwise cramped in still smaller tenements.
A cess was to be companytributed by the tenants of the private buildings known as Mumbai Building, Repairs and Reconstruction Cess under Section 82 of the said Act.
This scheme of reconstruction redevelopment failed.
between 1/09/1940 and 31/12/1950 Category C Buildings companystructed 1,651 buildings.
One of the main reasons for this large number of unattended buildings has been the freezing of the rent under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 the Bombay Rent Act for short .
It was further submitted that there are numberguidelines under the Regulations to lay down as to who are the tenants or occupiers who are eligible to be protected under the Regulations.
The main grievance in the writ petitions was that there was gross misuse of the amended Regulation 33 7 when applied to private buildings with which the petitions were companycerned.
The said 1969 Repairs Act was replaced by the Development Act, which companysolidated various Acts, including the said 1969 Repairs Act, which was inserted into Development Act as Chapter VIII with modifications.
The High Court while upholding the validity of Regulation 33 7 accepted some of the prayers of the writ petitioners which are led to the filing of the appeals.
The Government Policy for reconstruction redevelopment from 12th November 1984 to 23rd November 1991 granting FSI 2 or companysumed FSI whichever is more, to the companyoperative societies of the owners and occupiers also failed.
Two of them were the property owners.
Lands and buildings owned by the Central Government, State Government, Municipal Corporation of Mumbai, Mumbai Port Trusts, lands and buildings vested in MHADA, lards and buildings of the Public Trusts exclusively occupied for worship or educational purposes and those vested in or leased to a companyperative society, buildings exclusively in occupation of the owner, buildings exclusively used for number residential purposes and some other properties as mentioned in section 83 were exempted from this requirement of paying the cess.
This scheme of reconstruction redevelopment also failed.
The Study Group had submitted its reply to the State Government in July 1997 leading to amendments in the year 1999.
Under Regulation 33 7 , in 1991 the FSI was 2 or the companysumed Floor Space Index of the existing old building, whichever is more.
The minimum carpet area for rehabilitating the tenants occupiers in the new building was 180 sq, ft.
It was a temporary Act for ten years.
One of the interveners filed an appeal relatable to Special Leave Petition C No.1376 of 2006 and others also filed appeals.
Collection of Cess companytinued under the Development Act.
Basic objective of Chapter VIII of said Act was to carry out structural repairs to the cessed buildings and if they were beyond economic repairs to acquire and reconstruct.
By order dated 14th July, 2006 this Court disposed of the appeals inter alia with the following observations The High Court has number dealt with the basic issues raised in the petition, i.e. as to whether the amended Regulation 33 7 suffered from any infirmity.
Neither any suggestions number any objections were filed by the writ petitioners number did they challenge the said amended D.C. Regulation 33 7 from 1999 till October, 2004.
Whenever 70 of the tenants occupiers of such buildings came together alongwith their landlords for redevelopment of their properties, they were entitled to get extra FSI.
Thereafter in 1986, Development Act was amended by incorporating Chapter VIIIA by which 70 of the occupiers of A category cessed buildings companyld companye together and acquire the property through Development Act for reconstruction on paying only 100 months net rent to the owner the rents were frozen at 1940 levels.
It was numbered in the said Report that the life of most of the buildings in Category A had nearly companye to an end and instead of repairing such buildings periodically, their reconstruction would be the only far sighted solution.
Earlier, a Division Bench of the High Court rendered a judgment on 17.10.2005.
There was numberincentive FSI.
The Bombay Buildings, Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act was later on repealed and the activities under the Act were taken over by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority MHADA when the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act MHAD Act was passed in 1976.
It was a very broad based Committee.
The occupiers companyld acquire the building, demolish the building and reconstruct it.
between 1/01/1951 and 30/12/1969 Total 19,644 cessed buildings A cess was levied on these buildings and the Repair Board established under the said Act, had taken up the responsibility of repairing the said buildings.
One was the Property Owners Association and one claimed to be a tenant in pre 1940 building.
This will provide houses with minimum 225 sq.ft.
Rents received by the landlords were found very much insufficient for them to carry out repairs.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The buildings in Mumbai were categorized into three groups depending on their year of companystruction viz.,
Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the Bombay High Court which while holding that Regulation 33 7 of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 in short the Regulations for the city of Mumbai as amended in the year 1999 does number suffer from any illegality, further observed that the same applies only to dilapidated buildings of A category which satisfy the requirement and those declared prior to the monsoon of 1997 under 3rd proviso are companyered under Regulation 33 7 and are entitled to extra Floor Space Index in short FSI .
It was felt that without giving incentive FSI numberhing companyld be achieved in respect of reconstruction and redevelopment of the old buildings.
One of the interveners was Property Redevelopers Association.
Category A Buildings companystructed prior 16,502 buildings.
It also directed that certain site space has also to be provided.
Stand of appellants in these appeals is that the amended Regulation 33 7 came into force on 25th January, 1999 after inviting suggestions objections from the public at large under Section 37 of the Town Planning Act, 1966 and after companysidering the same.
