Observing that a dilapidated building will not warn before collapsing, the Bombay High Court today said apart from authorities, even tenants of such buildings should act responsibly and vacate the premises before any damage is caused.
A division bench of Justices V M Kanade and M S Sonak was hearing a petition filed by Hare Krishna Builders, seeking a direction to Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to evict tenants who are refusing to vacate the 90-year-old building here which is in a dilapidated condition and may collapse.
The court had on the last hearing expressed concern over the increasing number of building collapse incidents in the city during the last one year and said that authorities like the municipal corporations and MHADA should act in a more responsible manner rather than shifting blame on each other.
The court had then directed MHADA to hold an inquiry and pass appropriate orders.
The bench was today informed by MHADA that it was ready to initiate action of eviction against those tenants who are refusing to move out of the building but first the developer will have to assure that they would pay the tenants rent for transit accommodation.
"Why are they (tenants) refusing to vacate? Are they not worried about their lives? The building is not going to tell them first that it is going to collapse. First shift to transit accommodation then the court will consider all their issues," the court said.
The bench has directed the developer to file an undertaking stating that they would provide rent to all the tenants, pending redevelopment of the project, by December 3.
According to the petition, the developer had entered into an agreement to re-develop the building. While 70 per cent of the occupants agreed, the remaining tenants have been refusing to vacate the premises despite being assured that they would be provided with rent by the builder to obtain alternate accommodation.
While the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Fire Department have given their No Objection Certificate, MHADA authorities are insisting that it is the builder's responsibility to provide alternate accommodation.
