IN THE judgement of the case –Sugee Developers v. The State of Maharashtra and six others, Justice Kamal Khata has declared that the impugned order ignores the GR of August 16, 2010 and the binding law in the case – Laxmi Gopinath Shetye v. MHADA & another –Bombay High Court (2024) D.B. on March 13, 2024. In view of this, the Bombay High Court has allowed the writ petition on August 12, 2025, setting aside the impugned order. Through this petition, quashing of the impugned order of April 26, 2019 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary of Housing Department in second appeal was prayed for along with restoration of earlier order dated November 9,2015 passed by the Vice President and CEO of MHADA.

 

The petitioner is the owner and developer of property in Mahim Division situated at Gokhale- South Dadar-West Mumbai- 400028, which includes an old cessed building formerly known as ‘Mohammad Mansion’ (now Sugee Sadan) purchased on December 27, 2009. The building was fully tenanted at the time of purchase. The controversy pertains to Room No. 16-B, an enclosed space under a staircase on the ground floor admeasuring 3.39 Sq. Meters (36.50 Sq.Ft.). The issue is whether the respondent-6 is entitled to tenancy rights for this space. The order under challenge directs MBRRB to recognise respondent-6 as a tenant of Room No. 16-B based on rent receipts, MCGM inspection extract and BMC assessment of Room16-B prior to 1995. The impugned order sets aside the two concurrent findings of (i) the Vice President and CEO of MHADA dated November 9, 2015 dismissing the respondent-6’s appeal and (ii) the Chief Officer, MBRRB rejecting respondent-6’s representation seeking eligibility of residential accommodation of Room No. 16-B.

 

Challenge to the impugned order is based on (i) Govt. Resolution of August 16, 2010 (ii) the documents in support of claim of tenancy (iii) FSI benefit (iv) Full OC granted for Sugee Sadan by the BMC on March 15, 2010. The impugned order provides no reason for overturning these concurrent findings and relies only on later documents and BMC inspection extract, without addressing the absence of documents required under the GR. In Laxmi Shetye’s case the Bombay HC Division Bench has held that the existence of a shop and establishment certificate, electricity meter, BMC assessment receipt or even correspondence with an authority does not prove legality of structure or establish tenancy. The ruling is binding and the court saw no reason to differ from it. The concerned authorities passed reasoned orders in accordance with the GR of August 16, 2010 and the respondent-6 has not produced any document establishing a valid tenancy. The claim appears to be an attempt to extract money or additional premises from the developer. The premises in question-admittedly used as a sleeping/rest area for staff – reflect how open spaces are enclosed and styled as “rooms” to gain redevelopment benefits under the DCR. The space under the staircase measures only 3.39 sq.m. (36.48 sq. feet), has no separate utility connections and cannot be regarded as a “room” in any real sense. At best it is an enclosed space. Even if rent was collected for its use, this alone confer no tenancy rights.

 

This case illustrates how rent control conditions incentivise landlords to monetise even the smallest open spaces, with such enclosures later being projected as legitimate tenancies. In this case respondent-6 sought to convert a 36.48 sq. feet space into a residential allotment exceeding 400 sq. feet in the redeveloped building worth approximately Rs 1.20 crore at a conservative rate of Rs 30,000 per sq.ft. Such demands lacking any legal basis, amount to unjust attachment and cannot be entertained. The respondent-6 previously filed a writ petition 655/2014, 430 of 2017 and an appeal from the High Powered Committee order of November 9, 2015, and has persistently abused the Judicial Process. He has done so fully aware that the area he claims as tenancy is merely an enclosure under a staircase, without supporting documents. Despite repeated rejection of his claim by various authorities, he has continued to litigate purely as a gamble.

 

The Supreme Court in the case of Rakes Kumar Goyal v. U.P. SIDCO-(2010)8 SCC 279 while imposing exemplary costs, held that court is not for manipulators, speculators and land grabbers. The litigation in courts is not like buying a lottery ticket that if luck favours it might bring a windfall (even though illegitimate) but would cost no more than the expenses of litigation. That is not the way of this Court. This constitutes a sheer abuse of process. Further, respondent-6 has taken liberties with the truth and, knowing that this space is not “premises” as contemplated under any law, nonetheless initiated proceedings with the sole intention of compelling the Developer to offer him compensation in cash or kind for such enclosure. Evidently, the developer successfully redeveloped the building and completed all formalities, including securing full OC for all concerned has been forced to contest multiple litigations since 2013. Such conduct must be viewed with strong disapproval and warrants imposition of exemplary costs- not only to deter similar frivolous claims but also to protect the judicial resources from being consumed by cases filed in the hope of windfall gains. Accordingly, costs of Rs ten Lakh have been imposed on R-6, payable to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of uploading this order.

 

This approach is consistent with the Supreme Court’s Ruling in the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and another v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and others –(2017)5 SCC 496. The HC has quoted from the SC’s decision in that case as under: The Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court, should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, so that there is no premium on the truth. The HC has quoted the Supreme Court saying in the said judgement that it is not merely a matter of discretion, but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice.