‘Mumbai not for developers, SRA intended for public welfare’

Bombay High Court slams two builders for failing to pay transit rent to beneficiaries of rehab project

First India Bureau

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has directed two developers to pay transit arrears of Rs11 crore to a suburban SRA project. While giving the order, the court observed, “This city is not for developers, and the Slum Rehabilitation Act (SRA) is intended to serve the purpose of public welfare and not the developers.” A division bench comprising Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale on Monday heard a petition filed by Shree Sai Pawan SRA CHS Ltd claiming that the two developers appointed for redevelopment of their society had not paid them transit rent since 2019.

Afcons Developers Ltd and Ameya Housing Private Ltd were appointed as co-developers of the slum rehabilitation project at Jogeshwari in suburban Mumbai.

More than 300 people eligible to get flats in the project have not been getting any transit rent since 2019. Of the 300, 17 were put up in transit accommodations and were hence not receiving transit rent, but these houses were also in a dilapi- dated condition. The remaining 230 persons have not re- ceived any transit rent since 2019 and have been left to fend for themselves. The two codevelopers are locked in a never-ending arbitration and there is no work being done at the site, the court said.

“This city is not for developers. The Slum Rehabilitation Act is not for developers. The Act is intended to serve a public welfare purpose. Developers are a means to that end,” it observed.

The court further said that the developers are entitled to a free sale component provided by the incentive Floor Space Index (FSI), but this is a consideration for fulfilling their obligations under the contract.

“Those obligations include not only rebuilding or building of the rehabilitation structures and tenements both commercial and residential, but also the payment of transit rent or providing habitable transit accommodation,” it said.

A party in default cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong and failure. That would be profiteering, and that too, at public expense, because many of these slum projects are on public lands such as this one, and the developer is not being made to pay the cost of land.

—Bombay High Court