Illegal structures by tenant

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_court-provides-no-relief-for-mumbai-tenant-who-built-illegal-safety-doors_1615722 Court provides no relief for Mumbai tenant who built illegal safety doors Published: Tuesday, Nov 22, 2011, 8:30 IST By Mustafa Plumber | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA A tenant, living in the same building where former Chief Justice of India MH Kania lived for years, failed to get any relief from the Bombay high court. Harshada Ghia lives in Prabhu Nivas building on Charni Road and has illegally built safety doors, blocking the common passage for the fire exit. In a letter attached as an annexure to the petition filed by Ghia, Kania had stated that safety doors were there when he was a tenant in the building, though he doesn’t remember whether the door was there on block no 21 on the building’s second floor. According to Ghia, the building was constructed in 1933 and he took over possession in 1975 from the landlord, Rajesh Reshamwala. In 2000, the tenants moved the small causes court against the landlord for doing minor repair works. In 2007, the landlord complained to the corporation, saying that the tenants on the second and fourth floor of the building had illegally built safety doors. The civic body issued notices to the tenants. Ghia said the building has been in existence since 1933 and the Mumbai Regional Town Planning Act, came into existence only in 1967. So, it would not apply to his case. A division bench of Justice PB Majmudar and Justice MR Bhatkar said: “You can’t claim relief even when other tenants have removed their illegal construction.” Ghia said the entire process of issuing a notice by the BMC was illegal and should be set aside. BMC counsel, Preeti Purandhare, who opposed the plea, said: “Three other tenants of the building have demolished their safety doors and have initiated proceedings at the city civil court. The present petitioner has no right to appeal directly and if he wants to challenge the notices issued by the civic body he should move the civil court along with other tenants.” Ghia wanted to withdraw his plea to take appropriate legal recourse. Purandhare opposed that, stating: “He can’t have everything at his convenience.” The bench dismissed the plea