MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court recently imposed a fine of ₹50 lakh on the owner of a commercial premises in Kurla East for leasing it out to the Jammu and Kashmir Bank despite the property lacking an Occupancy Certificate (OC).
Justice Kamal Khata on October 17 ordered the property owner, 65-year-old businessman Bharat Keshavji Chheda, to pay the fine amount to the PM Cares Fund within two weeks. It also ordered the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada) and the bank’s chairman to conduct an inquiry and identify the officers responsible for running the branch from the premises. The court has sought a report from them on the action taken within eight weeks.
Chheda had approached the high court after Mhada issued him a notice in January to vacate the premises—shop No. 2 in building No. 5 of the Panchratna Co-operative Housing Society in Nehru Nagar, Kurla East—in 48 hours. Mhada had warned that the shop would be sealed if the owner failed to comply with the order.
The very next day, Chheda approached the high court and complained that the order was passed without complying with the principles of natural justice, though it entailed adverse civic consequences. He managed to secure interim protection from the court against vacating the shop.
On October 17, when the petition came up for hearing again, Mhada’s counsel, advocate Akshay Shinde, urged the court to vacate the interim order, pointing out that the building lacked an OC. He added that the interim order was obtained from the high court without giving Mhada an effective notice.
Advocate Aditya Shirke, who represented the petitioner, submitted that the builder had given them possession without an OC. He added that Chheda had entered a lease agreement with the bank in February 2024 and sought six months to vacate the premises, citing public inconvenience if the branch was closed abruptly.
Justice Khata, however, said that the attribution of possession to the developer did not absolve the petitioner of the basic obligation to ensure lawful occupation. “A person engaged in business cannot feign ignorance of the fundamental requirement of an OC for occupation and commercial use,” said the judge, adding that the matters are aggravated by inducting a bank branch in the premises.
The court added that the bank officers owed a duty of diligence to verify statutory compliances, including an OC and fire NOC, prior to opening the branch. Having failed to do so, neither the bank nor the petitioner could invoke natural justice to prolong their unlawful occupation or claim indulgence on the footing of “public inconvenience” of its own making, the court said.