SC Examines Maharashtra Law on Dilapidated Buildings Amidst Landlord Disputes

GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 24th April. The Supreme Court on Tuesday examined the intricacies of a Maharashtra law aimed at addressing the challenge of dilapidated buildings amidst tenant disputes and financial constraints faced by landlords. Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, leading a nine-judge constitution bench, scrutinized whether privately owned properties could be construed as “material resources of the community,” as mandated by Article 39 (b) of the Constitution’s Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).

Mumbai, characterized by its dense population and aged structures, grapples with numerous dilapidated buildings housing tenants despite safety concerns due to neglect. To address this issue, the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act of 1976 introduced measures such as imposing a cess on occupants for repairs, managed by the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB).

In 1986, invoking Article 39(b), the MHADA Act was amended to empower the state to acquire such buildings and land, facilitating their transfer to needy occupants. Chapter VIII-A of the amended law allows acquisition if 70% of occupants request it.

However, the Property Owners Association has challenged Chapter VIII-A, alleging discrimination against owners and violation of their right to equality under Article 14.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice underscored the broader societal implications of privately owned resources, citing the example of private mines. He emphasized understanding Article 39 (b) expansively, considering properties like old Mumbai buildings as essential community assets despite private ownership.

Referring to the rationale behind the MHADA Act, the Chief Justice highlighted the financial plight of landlords unable to afford repairs due to meager rents and tenant occupancy. He emphasized the legislative intent to address structural decay and tenant welfare.

The term “material resources of the community” was debated extensively, with the bench asserting the community’s vested interest in building safety. Over 13,000 cessed buildings in Mumbai await restoration or reconstruction, often hindered by tenant-landlord disputes.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Maharashtra government, clarified that the central issue before the bench was whether Article 39 (b) encompassed privately owned resources. He affirmed the validity of Article 31-C, as established in the historic Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, which recognized Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution within defined limits.

The hearing adjourned without conclusion and is set to resume on Wednesday, marking a pivotal moment in the legal interpretation of property rights and community welfare under constitutional principles.