Archive · 8 Oct 2026
Bombay High Court Clears Byculla Building Redevelopment
Issa Building in Byculla is in poor condition and is planned for redevelopment.
Most of its occupants have agreed to the project and left their premises.
Some occupants challenged notices asking them to leave.
They said the official issuing the notices lacked authority and raised concerns about rent and corpus fund conditions.
The Bombay High Court dismissed their petitions.
It said a small group should not be able to hold up a redevelopment supported by most occupants.
The court also noted that funds had been deposited with MHADA.
It accepted MHADA’s assurance that the project conditions would be enforced.
The Bombay High Court dismissed occupants’ petitions challenging eviction notices for Issa Building in Byculla.
The 83-unit building was declared dilapidated and proposed for redevelopment under Regulation 33(7) of DCPR 2034.
Of the 83 occupants, 57 signed permanent alternate accommodation agreements and surrendered possession.
The court said Section 95A of the MHADA Act allows summary eviction to prevent occupants from obstructing redevelopment.
The court noted that rent and corpus funds had been deposited with MHADA and accepted its assurance that conditions would be enforced.
- Who
- The Bombay High Court, MHADA, the building’s landowners, and occupants of Issa Building.
- What
- The court dismissed petitions challenging eviction notices, clearing the way for the building’s redevelopment.
- When
- The report is dated October 7, 2026; MHADA issued the challenged notices on August 12, 2026.
- Where
- Issa Building, Madanpura, Byculla, Mumbai.
- Why
- The court found that Section 95A provides a summary process to prevent occupants from obstructing redevelopment, and noted the building’s dilapidated condition and majority support for the project.
Petitioning occupants
MHADA and developers
Authority for eviction notices
Petitioning occupants
The petitioners questioned the executive engineer’s authority to issue the notices.
MHADA and developers
MHADA said the executive engineer acted with due authorisation from the Chief Officer of the MHADA Board.
Project conditions and payments
Petitioning occupants
The petitioners alleged that the developer had not complied with conditions concerning corpus funds and rent agreements.
MHADA and developers
The developer said rent and corpus funds had been deposited with MHADA after the petitioners refused to accept them; MHADA assured the court that conditions would be enforced.
Effect of objections on redevelopment
Petitioning occupants
The occupants challenged the eviction notices and sought to contest the redevelopment-related action.
MHADA and developers
MHADA argued Section 95A is meant to prevent individual occupants from delaying redevelopment, while the developers cited the building’s dangerous condition and the majority’s support.
- Building
- Issa Building, Madanpura, Byculla
- Number of premises
- 83: 63 residential and 20 commercial
- Occupants supporting project
- 57 had signed Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements and surrendered possession
- Redevelopment framework
- Regulation 33(7) of DCPR 2034
- Eviction provision
- Section 95A of the MHADA Act
- Notice date
- August 12, 2026
- Court outcome
- Petitions dismissed; redevelopment may proceed