Coronavirus cases in Maharashtra: 510Mumbai: 278Pune: 57Islampur Sangli: 25Ahmednagar: 20Nagpur: 16Navi Mumbai: 16Pimpri Chinchwad: 15Thane: 14Kalyan-Dombivali: 10Vasai-Virar: 6Buldhana: 6Yavatmal: 4Satara: 3Aurangabad: 3Panvel: 2Ratnagiri: 2Kolhapur: 2Palghar: 2Ulhasnagar: 1Sindudurga: 1Pune Gramin: 1Godiya: 1Jalgoan: 1Nashik: 1Washim: 1Gujrat Citizen in Maharashtra: 1Total Deaths: 21Total Discharged: 42BMC Helpline Number:1916State Helpline Number:022-22694725

High Court provides temporary relief to BMC over controversial Borivli building


High Court provides temporary relief to BMC over controversial Borivli building
SHARE

In what has been a strenuous ordeal for tenants of the controversial apartment building known as Pushp Vinod in Borivli (W), the Bombay High Court has finally offered some relief to the BMC (Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation) asking them to take action against the developer, Vas Infrastructure. 


This comes after an HC bench headed by Justice S J Kathawalla criticized the BMC for this fiasco as the developer claimed that the authorities had failed to provide an occupation certificate or OC to the builder. 


The developer cited the lack of an OC from the BMC as the reason for not providing occupancy to tenants. This case was filed with the High Court in 2018 by one of the original tenants, Jatin Shah, who initially moved the City Civil Court, and subsequently the High Court. 


Also read: Lawyers In Borivali To Protest Over Recent Clashes In Delhi Court


The counsel for BMC Veera Shinde said that the builder constructed several parts of the building illegally and without prior permission from the authorities. Shinde stated that the entirety of the 11th floor was built without permission, while the apartment was occupied without an OC certificate. Further, the BMC counsel added that the servants’ toilets from floors one to six were built without approval. 


Earlier this month, the HC instructed a BMC executive engineer to visit the premises at Pushp Vinod building No 3 to report illegalities that restricted the authorities from providing the aforementioned occupation certificate. 


Meanwhile, lawyers for the builder, Prateek Sakeseria and Viraj Maniar, said to the court that the developer had applied for regularization with the BMC and is even willing to pay the premiums. 


The controversy arose when the developer decided to take occupancy of their tenants’ flats for redevelopment. Seeing no progress with the redevelopment, the tenant Jatin Shah had to take legal recourse as we detailed above. While the builder was passing the buck onto the BMC, the original tenants of the building were without a home.

RELATED TOPICS
Related News