The Bombay High Court has cleared the redevelopment of an 80-year-old building in Matunga East, dismissing a petition by minority tenants challenging MHADA’s eviction notice. The court ruled that individual objections cannot override majority consent in lawful redevelopment projects
The Buddhisagar Co-operative Housing Society in Matunga East, which is now likely to undergo redevelopment. Pic/Atul Kamble
In a rare ruling in Mumbai’s redevelopment battles, the Bombay High Court has cleared the redevelopment of an 80-year-old Matunga East building, rejecting attempts by a minority of tenants to stall a project backed by the majority and approved by multiple statutory authorities.
On February 3, the court dismissed a writ petition challenging an eviction notice issued by MHADA for the redevelopment of Buddhisagar Co-operative Housing Society, observing that individual obstruction cannot override lawful collective decisions, particularly in old and dilapidated buildings.
The society has 12 tenant families occupying 14 flats. Seven families had already consented to redevelopment and vacated, while five tenants opposed the project by challenging MHADA’s eviction notice issued under Section 95(A) of the MHADA Act. “After the developer submitted a valid application and since a clear majority had given consent, the eviction notice was issued as per law,” said Rakesh Dhanwate, executive engineer, MHADA. “The notice was challenged by one tenant in the high court.”
Buddhisagar Co-operative Housing Society building in Matunga East, cleared for redevelopment by the Bombay High Court. Pic/Atul Kamble
The redevelopment process began in 2021 when the society unanimously appointed Innovative Realest Pvt Ltd as developer. A registered development agreement was signed by all members, power of attorney executed, and hardship compensation paid in instalments. Approvals were obtained from MHADA, the municipal corporation, the collector’s office and the chief fire officer.
However, disputes surfaced when some tenants allegedly demanded higher rent and additional area beyond the agreed terms. “Without general body approval, unilateral termination notices were issued to us through advocates,” said Rajiv Mehta, managing director of Innovative Realest. “This forced other members to approach the registrar under Section 78A for obstruction and mismanagement.” An inquiry by the registrar’s office later found that advocates were appointed and termination notices issued without general body sanction.
Money & offers
>> Hardship compensation paid: Rs 1.75 crore
>> Instalments: Rs 50 lakh, Rs 75 lakh, Rs 50 lakh
>> Rent offer: Rs 110 per sq ft
>> Alternate accommodation: Offered in Sion
When the case reached the high court in December 2025, the petitioners questioned MHADA’s no-objection certificate and the validity of the development agreement. The court rejected the plea, noting that material facts, including acceptance of compensation, were suppressed.
The court also pointed out that the society itself was not made a party, rendering the petition fundamentally flawed. Calling the plea “grossly misconceived,” it dismissed the petition with costs of Rs 1 lakh payable to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority.
“We will vacate the house and pay Rs 1 lakh. We do not wish to comment further,” said petitioner Manoj Broker.
Key dates
Oct 2021: First hardship compensation paid
Nov 2021: Development agreement signed
Jun 2024: MHADA NOC issued
Dec 2025: Writ petition filed
Feb 3, 2026: High court dismisses petition
Consent snapshot
Total number of flats: 14
No. of tenant families: 12
No. of Vacated families: 7
No. of opposing tenants: 5
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
