Bombay High Court has fined eight tenants ₹2 lakh each for obstructing the demolition of a century-old, unsafe building in Malad West. The court dismissed their plea seeking repairs over redevelopment, stressing that individual resistance cannot override public safety, setting a firm precedent for Mumbai’s approach to hazardous housing and equitable urban renewal.
The High Court’s order pertains to Krishna Baug Building No. 1, located in Malad West and classified by the civic body as a “C1” structure—meaning unfit for habitation and marked for urgent demolition. Originally built over a century ago, the building has long been deemed structurally unsound. A demolition notice was issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) in October 2020 after official inspections and engineering assessments confirmed extensive deterioration. Despite the structural concerns, eight tenants of the building filed a legal petition in 2023 seeking reclassification of the structure to “C2-B,” which would allow limited repairs rather than full demolition. They argued that the ground floor, after undergoing some fixes, was no longer dangerous. However, the High Court found the arguments insufficient and deemed the plea obstructionist, stating that the property owner has the legal right to redevelop the site in the interest of public safety.
The division bench, presided over by senior judges, firmly established that redevelopment differs from reconstruction and falls beyond the scope of tenant protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The bench noted that while tenants have rights to occupy, they cannot prevent the lawful redevelopment of a building deemed hazardous by the civic body. In its ruling, the court underlined the growing need for cities like Mumbai to embrace sustainable urban redevelopment, especially when ageing buildings pose a threat to life and infrastructure. Patchwork repairs, the court noted, are no substitute for structural renewal—particularly in buildings that are over 100 years old and have outlived their safe utility.
Officials from the municipal corporation confirmed that multiple surveys and technical reports had highlighted critical structural flaws in Krishna Baug Building No. 1. The decision to proceed with demolition was not sudden but based on accumulated evidence pointing to potential danger, especially during monsoon season when such old structures are at higher risk of collapse. The petitioners requested a six-week stay of the order to allow them time to appeal in the Supreme Court. The High Court denied this, citing undue delay already caused to other residents by the petitioners’ prolonged resistance. The court imposed a ₹2 lakh fine on each of the eight tenants and directed them to deposit the amount with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks.
Urban policy experts and legal observers have welcomed the ruling as a significant moment for Mumbai’s redevelopment policy. Many argue that tenant opposition often slows down necessary upgrades to the city’s housing stock—particularly in areas where buildings are decades old and built without adherence to modern safety norms. The court’s stance sends a clear message: personal interests must not jeopardise collective safety. Experts in sustainable city planning noted that redeveloping older buildings into green, energy-efficient housing can significantly improve urban resilience. New construction allows for earthquake-resistant structures, updated sewage and drainage systems, energy-efficient materials, and improved public utility access. These are improvements that cannot be achieved through repairs alone, especially in buildings suffering from foundational degradation.
Legal professionals noted that this ruling clarifies the distinction between tenant rights and redevelopment imperatives. It asserts that while occupants must be protected against arbitrary eviction, they cannot prevent civic or private agencies from implementing safety-driven projects with legal sanction. This decision may serve as a precedent in other similar cases where residents of dilapidated buildings resist civic-led or owner-driven redevelopment. Mumbai, a city with thousands of ageing structures, faces recurring tragedies due to structural collapses. With climate variability increasing, the risk to such vulnerable buildings is higher than ever.
Activists advocating for equitable redevelopment pointed out that this judgment must be matched by civic responsibility from builders and authorities. Redevelopment should not displace vulnerable residents without adequate rehabilitation. A transparent, fair, and people-first approach remains crucial, even as the judiciary enforces the need for timely urban transformation. The ruling also reflects a shift in judicial thinking, placing greater emphasis on long-term urban sustainability rather than short-term tenant comfort. By balancing legal rights with safety mandates, the court has reaffirmed the principle that resilient cities must be built on both fairness and foresight.
While some may view the penalty as harsh, the redirection of the fine to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund gives the judgment wider social value. It turns a punitive action into a gesture of national solidarity, reinforcing the idea that civic actions have communal consequences. With this legal roadblock cleared, authorities are expected to move forward with the demolition process and initiate the redevelopment under stricter compliance with safety and green building standards. This could include better monitoring mechanisms for tenant relocation, construction safety norms, and enforcement of time-bound completion to prevent extended displacement.
As Mumbai grapples with its dual challenge of accommodating rapid urbanisation and upgrading its ageing infrastructure, the High Court’s ruling in the Malad case could mark a crucial turning point—where redevelopment is not just a necessity but a civic duty.
Also Read : Delhis Airport Stretch Drains Vanish, NHAI Ordered to Fix Flood Risk
