In a Bombay High Court ruling, a builder has been directed to pay transit rent for a flat involved in an ownership dispute and subsequently vacate the property. The man's sister had contested the ownership of the flat. The court clarified that transit rent should be paid to the person being displaced from the premises and that disputes over property titles do not impact the payment of transit rent. This judgement modifies a previous order and emphasizes the importance of adhering to established legal principles regarding transit rent and property possession in redevelopment cases.
In a recent legal development, an appeals bench of the Bombay High Court issued a significant directive in a property ownership dispute. The ruling pertains to a builder who has been instructed to pay transit rent for a flat embroiled in a dispute and vacate the property, with the understanding that the flat will be returned to him once the building is reconstructed. The heart of this dispute lies in the ownership of the flat, with the man facing opposition from his sister. On October 6, Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, heading the division bench, issued this verdict, altering the order of the single-judge bench.
The bench underscored the clarity and settled legal stance concerning transit rent in such cases. It is unequivocally stated that transit rent must be paid to the person who is being displaced from the premises. Furthermore, the bench affirmed that the individual who has been displaced for the purpose of redevelopment should be reinstated in possession upon the project's completion. Importantly, the bench articulated that disputes over property titles or claims among family members or other parties within buildings undergoing redevelopment should not influence the payment of transit rent or the return of the property to the displaced individual.
Justice Manish Pitale issued a previous ruling on August 29, which led to this judicial decision. In that judgement, occupants of two flats in the Nav Samir Cooperative Housing Society in South Mumbai were directed to vacate the premises by October 3 to expedite a redevelopment project and prevent inconvenience to the 24 others who had already moved out. Justice Pitale noted that when disputes arise between parties with competing claims over flats, it is appropriate for benefits like transit rent and corpus funds to be deposited in court. These funds would then be disbursed following the final adjudication of the rights of all involved parties.
In this particular case, Justice Pitale instructed the builder to deposit the transit rent with Vipul Shah and another individual after they vacated the premises. Shah subsequently appealed this order. Before the appeal bench, Shah's counsel, Naushad Engineer, referred to three rulings from the previous year that clarified the rightful recipient of transit rent—the person from whom possession is taken. The legal battles involving such possessors, he argued, are wholly irrelevant to the payment of transit rent. Advocates Shrey Fatterpekar and Jay Vakil, representing the housing society, concurred with this interpretation.
On the other side, Advocate Dhruti Kapadia represented Shah's sister, who claimed 50 percent rights to the flat and sought half of the transit rent, even though she was not in possession. In its ruling, the appeals bench partially accepted Shah's plea. While directing him to vacate the flat, the bench mandated that the builder commence transit rent payments from the date of Shah's departure. Furthermore, it ordered the builder to return possession of the flat to Shah after the completion of the redevelopment project, with no prejudice to the rights of the other claimant.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
