Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 845 (BOM)

Sanjali Sanjay Kadu v. State of Maharashtra

2008-06-20

A.A.KUMBHAKONI, S.B.MHASE

body2008
ORDER : Per: A. A. Kumbhakoni, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. In view of the fact that the question involved in the present petition needs to be answered urgently, as the same pertains to redevelopment of old buildings belonging to the Respondents, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “the said Corporation”), which is sought to be undertaken by applying the provisions of Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the “DCR” for the sake of brevity) applicable to the area of the said Corporation, by consent of parties, we have heard all the parties at length for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. In Island City of Bombay 133 constructions were put up very many years ago by Bombay Improvement Trust to provide housing to the thousands of workers and their families migrating to the City of Bombay at that time, as a consequence of rapid industrialisation. These structures are known as “BIT Chawls”. These BIT Chawls are owned by the said Corporation and are occupied by various persons (of course, along with their families) who are tenants of the said Corporation. The present petition pertains to Chawl Nos. 5 and 7 out of these BIT Chawls, which are located at Agripada, Bombay ( hereinafter referred to as the 'said Chawls' for the sake of brevity). 4. Admittedly the construction of buildings of said chawls is about 120 years old and houses 144 tenants. Only 13 out of these 144 tenants have filed this petition. The petition appears to have been signed only by 11, the same having been not signed by the 4th and 13th Petitioner, which, of course, will not make any difference for deciding the issues raised by the petitioners. 5. In view of acute shortage of residential accommodation in the Island City of Bombay, to encourage redevelopment of old structures, to add to the existing housing stock and with such similar objects, DCR No. 33(7) along with Appendix III ( hereinafter referred to as the said DCR for the sake of brevity) have been brought into force. The relevant portion of the said DCR 33(7) reads thus:- “33(7). Reconstruction or redevelopment of cessed buildings in the Island City by Cooperative Housing Societies or of old buildings belonging to the Corporation or of old buildings belonging to the Police Department. The relevant portion of the said DCR 33(7) reads thus:- “33(7). Reconstruction or redevelopment of cessed buildings in the Island City by Cooperative Housing Societies or of old buildings belonging to the Corporation or of old buildings belonging to the Police Department. For Reconstruction / redevelopment to be undertaken by Co-operative Housing Societies of existing tenants or by Co-op. Housing Societies of landlords and/or occupiers of a cessed buildings of “A' category in Island City, which attracts the provisions of MHAD Act, 1976 and for reconstruction / redevelopment of the buildings of Corporation and Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra, constructed prior to 1940, the Floor Space Index shall be 2.5 on the gross plot area or the FSI required for rehabilitation of existing tenants, plus incentive FSI as specified in Appendix-III whichever is more. [Note: The development of land for Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra shall be permitted by the Commissioner after due approval of the committee mentioned in Note-3 below regulation 33(3)(A)}. Provided, however, that with previous approval of the Government, MHADA / Corporation shall be eligible to get additional incentive FSI over otherwise permissible FSI as specified in Annexure III of these Regulations. Provided further that in cases of composite redevelopment scheme for plot having “A” category as also “B' category cessed building, the above FSI shall be available. Provided further that in cases of reconstruction / redevelopment of buildings which have been declared as unsafe by the BHAD Board prior to monsoon of 1997, the above FSI will be available irrespective of category of cessed building. Provided further that reconstruction / redevelopment undertaken by proposed Cooperative Housing Societies of Landlords and/or Occupiers of cessed building of “B' category, and where composite development is undertaken by different owners of 5 or more plots, the FSI required for Rehabilitation of existing tenants plus incentive FSI as specified in Appendix III will be available.” 6. The Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to examine the validity of the said DCR. This Judgment delivered by the Division Bench in the case of Joseph Bain D'souza & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. And Jayant Achyut Sathe – Interveners is reported in 2007(1) Bom. C.R. 303. The Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to examine the validity of the said DCR. This Judgment delivered by the Division Bench in the case of Joseph Bain D'souza & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. And Jayant Achyut Sathe – Interveners is reported in 2007(1) Bom. C.R. 303. However we will hasten to add that the Division Bench had an occasion to examine the said DCR in regard to “the privately owned buildings” only situate in the Island City of Bombay. This aspect of the matter is also admitted by the petitioners in as much as in paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition, the petitioners state thus : “ The petitioners state that in the aforesaid case of Joseph Bain D'souza and others this Hon'ble Court has confined its judgment only to privately owned buildings and has not dealt with the buildings of the Municipal Corporation as the petitioners therein had confined their case to privately owned cessed building of 'A' Category.” 7. It is the submission of the petitioners that as held by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Joseph Bain D'souza (supra) in the case of privately owned buildings, in the case of buildings owned by the Respondent said Corporation also, the said DCR can be made applicable for reconstruction/redevelopment of only and only such buildings owned by the Respondent – said Corporation which are dilapidated and structurally unsafe/unsound. The petitioners have filed this petition contending that the said DCR applies only to dilapidated buildings of the Corporation constructed prior to 1940 and that the said Chawls, are not dilapidated buildings. The contention of the petitioners is that the structure of the said chawls is not dilapidated as such and therefore, said DCR cannot be invoked for redevelopment of these two buildings in issue. The petitioners further contend that the said chawls have been recently repaired and hence are not dilapidated and/or structurally unsafe/unsound as such and therefore Regulation 33(7) cannot be invoked for their redevelopment. 8. First the facts, enough to decide the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners, before we deal with the same. The tenants occupying the said chawls formed “ Shree Sai Sahakari Cooperative Housing Society”, the 3rd Respondent herein. 8. First the facts, enough to decide the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners, before we deal with the same. The tenants occupying the said chawls formed “ Shree Sai Sahakari Cooperative Housing Society”, the 3rd Respondent herein. It is an admitted fact that more than 70% of the tenants/occupants of the said chawls not only decided that redevelopment of buildings of the said chawls needed to be carried out but also that such redevelopment be carried out by one M/s. Vignahartha Builders and Projects Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly the said Developer was appointed by the 3rd Respondent for conducting redevelopment of the said chawls. The Respondent Corporation on 23.12.2004 granted No Objection Certificate for such redevelopment to be carried out at the instance of 3rd Respondent. The Improvements Committee of the said Corporation also recommended and approved such redevelopment scheme by passing a Resolution No. 5 dated 25.4.2007. Even the said Corporation granted approval to the Development Scheme by its Resolution No. 201 dated 8.5.2007. A Letter of Intent was accordingly issued by the Respondent said Corporation on 20.5.2007 followed by issuance of Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) under Section 346 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) dated 29.8.2007. It has come on record that only 33 out of total 144 tenants/occupants are not co-operating with this redevelopment project of the 3rd Respondent. In other words, save and except 33 tenants/occupants out of 144, everybody has cooperated with this redevelopment activity even by shifting out of the buildings of the said chawls. The families of thus 111 tenants/occupants today are admittedly staying either in transit accommodations provided by the said developer or are staying at an alternative accommodation secured by them after vacating the said chawls, by accepting Rs. Five thousand per month towards rent in lieu of transitory accommodation of the Developer. The Petitioners are from and out of this group of 33 tenants/occupants who are not co-operating for the aforesaid redevelopment in issue. 9. The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the said Corporation discloses following facts that are not disputed by the Petitioners. As 33 occupants/tenants, some of whom are the present petitioners, were not shifting, notices were issued on 6.7.2007 calling upon them to cooperate and shift to alternative accommodation which was offered by the developer. 9. The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the said Corporation discloses following facts that are not disputed by the Petitioners. As 33 occupants/tenants, some of whom are the present petitioners, were not shifting, notices were issued on 6.7.2007 calling upon them to cooperate and shift to alternative accommodation which was offered by the developer. These notices evoked no response and therefore the said Corporation was constrained to issue Quit Notices under Section 105-B of the said Act on 2.8.2007. Thereafter individual hearing was also given to all of them as contemplated by sub section (2) of Section 105-B of the said Act. At the time of this hearing, the entire Redevelopment scheme was explained to each of these tenants/occupants who was not co-operating and it was tried to be impressed upon them that the redevelopment work was in their interest. Accordingly Minutes were recorded dated 8.11.2007 and communicated to each of the tenants. The Assistant Commissioner, 'E' Ward took action in accordance with the law and after hearing the objectors aforesaid, explained to them that redevelopment was intended to secure better accommodation to them and to protect their lives and properties which were otherwise in danger in case if the structures of said chawls collapse. However, wiser counsel did not prevail upon these objectors and they adamantly continued with their approach of non co-operation, which has resulted ultimately into issuance of Notices to them terminating their tenancies and asking them to vacate by treating them as unauthorized occupants. 10. The affidavit filed by the Developer points out following additional facts that are also not in dispute. On an earlier occasion, this group which is objecting to the redevelopment had filed Writ Petition no. 183 of 2006 in this court. A list of names of persons on whose behalf that petition was filed (that was enclosed as annexture to that petition) contains the names of all the present petitioners. A Division Bench of this Court was pleased to dismiss that petition by its Order dated 20.3.2006 by specifically recording the statement made on behalf of the Developer that the petitioners therein, including the present petitioners, will be rehabilitated in terms of NOC Granted by the said Corporation and further that they will be also provided with transit accommodations in the meanwhile during the period during which the redevelopment work goes on. 11. 11. However, the Division Bench granted liberty (indirectly) to the petitioners therein to take independent action in respect of their grievances regarding the N.O.C. granted by the said Corporation for the redevelopment as the same constituted an independent cause of action. It appears that therefore the present petitioners have continued the litigation by filing this petition. In this petition, the prayer clause reads thus : “(a) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that in so far as buildings of the Municipal Corporation are concerned, Regulation 33(7) is applicable only to dilapidated and structurally unsafe / unsound buildings; (b) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the NOC dated 23.12.2004 (Exhibit “D”), Resolution No. 5 dated 25.04.2007 of the Improvements Committee (Exhibit “E”), Resolution No. 201 dated 08.05.2007 of the Municipal Corporation (Exhibit “F”), Letter of Intent dated 28.05.2007 (Exhibit “G” and Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) dated 29.08.2007 (Exhibit “H”); (c) pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents from taking any further steps for redevelopment / reconstruction of B.I.T. Chawl Nos. 5 and 7; (d) pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive steps or evicting the tenants / occupiers from their tenements in B.I.T. Chawl Nos. 5 and 7; (e) for ad interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d) above; (f) for costs of the petition; (g) for such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require;” The grounds on which these reliefs are sought have been set out in this order at the threshold itself and the same need not be repeated at this juncture. However it is pertinent to note that the validity of the said DCR, in as much as its second part ( which applies to the buildings not owned privately) is concerned, is not questioned by this petition. That is the reason as to why the entire prayer clause of this petition is reproduced herein above by us. 12. However it is pertinent to note that the validity of the said DCR, in as much as its second part ( which applies to the buildings not owned privately) is concerned, is not questioned by this petition. That is the reason as to why the entire prayer clause of this petition is reproduced herein above by us. 12. The petition is opposed by all the respondents basically contending that the development is being carried out in accordance with law and that almost more than 90% of the occupants/tenants of the buildings in issue have not only accepted the redevelopment scheme but have also acted upon it by physically vacating their premises. At the cost of repetition it may be restated that these occupants with their families have either shifted to transitory accommodation provided by the developers or have made their alternative arrangements by accepting an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent in lieu of transitory accommodation. 13. It needs to be emphasized that the Developer and consequently the 3rd Respondent Society have undertaken to provide identical benefits to each of the petitioners as have been provided to the other occupants/tenants of the said chawls as a part of redevelopment scheme approved and sanctioned by all concerned Authorities including the said Corporation. 14. A bare perusal of the said DCR clearly demonstrates that it deals with two separate categories of buildings situate in the Island City of Mumbai. The first category of buildings are privately owned buildings and the second category of buildings are the one which belong to Corporation, Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra. The present case deals with only the second category of buildings and not the first one as the buildings of the said chawls are admittedly not privately owned but are owned by the said Corporation. 15. As aforesaid, even according to the case of the Petitioners themselves the Division Bench in the case of Joseph Bain 'D'souza (supra) has dealt with only first category of buildings i.e. the buildings which are privately owned. Even according to the petitioners as reflected from the pleadings of the present petition, particularly, paragraph 7 thereof, this decision of the Division Bench does not apply to the buildings in issue of the said chawls. 16. Even according to the petitioners as reflected from the pleadings of the present petition, particularly, paragraph 7 thereof, this decision of the Division Bench does not apply to the buildings in issue of the said chawls. 16. In fact a perusal of various paragraphs of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment delivered in the case of Joseph Bain D'souza (supra) such as paragraph Nos. 1, 17, 20 in particular demonstrates that in that case the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with only private buildings and not buildings owned by the State Government, Police etc. In other words, these paragraphs clearly show that the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case was dealing with first part of the said DCR and not the second part of the DCR with which we are concerned in the present matter. The present petition in fact seeks to apply the ratio of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment even to the second part of the said DCR, viz. the building owned by the said Corporation, Police etc. 17. The first contention of the petitioners that the said chawls have been repaired recently and that therefore they are not dilapidated and/or structurally unsafe/unsound, does not appeal to us. Even according to the case of the petitioners one of the building, namely, BIT Chawl No. 7 was repaired as far back as in the year 1997-98 at total expenditure of Rs.16,46,255/-. Looking to the extent of building and the year of its construction i.e. more than 120 years old ex-facie demonstrates that the building cannot be said to be structurally very sound. Admittedly, the other building in issue, namely, BIT Chawl No. 5 was surveyed by IIT Bombay, who had recommended that at least some portion of the building was in extremely dangerous condition and was required to be demolished and reconstructed. Be that as it may. 18. It is an admitted fact that both the buildings in issue are more than 120 years old and one of them having been found by IIT Bombay on its survey to be in extremely dangerous condition requiring its demolition (at least in part) and reconstruction, we do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioners that the buildings in issue should not be allowed to be redeveloped. This is particularly because admittedly all the occupants/tenants of the buildings in issue have already formed 3rd Respondent Co-operative Society which had engaged the Developer, who has agreed to redevelop the entire building. It has also come on record that on redevelopment of the property as contemplated by the relevant provisions of the DCR, No Objection Certificates / Approvals / Permissions granted by various Authorities, each and every occupants/tenants of the said chawl will be provided with an accommodation in the new structure/building to be constructed at the same site on its redevelopment. It has also come on record that each one of them will be provided by the Developer with either a transitory accommodation or Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent in lieu of transitory accommodation immediately on vacating the premises in their occupation from the said chawls. This transitory accommodation is to be continued with these tenants/occupants till the time they are put in possession of the newly constructed accommodation. 19. In the light of these and such other terms of the re-development scheme that is approved/sanctioned by all concerned authorities, we are satisfied that the redevelopment scheme is very much in the interest of these occupants/tenants and there is no reason at all as to why only handful of them should venture to oppose such redevelopment and/or are not cooperate with it when the same is even in their own interest. No purpose is going to be served by stopping the re-development resulting into everybody continuing to adversely suffer by languishing in the present buildings which are more than 120 years old. Even otherwise we find that it is in the larger public interest that such redevelopment must be encouraged failing which one day or the other these more than 120 years old structures are bound to collapse causing immense loss and irreparable hardship to all the occupants/tenants, which may also result into sometime unfortunate loss of lives, loss of property for sure. 20. The contention of the petitioners that only dilapidated and/or structurally unsafe/unsound buildings alone belonging to the said Corporation should be held entitled for the benefit of the said DCR 33(7) aforesaid is also without any substance. Per se neither the said DCR nor Appendix III thereof says so. 20. The contention of the petitioners that only dilapidated and/or structurally unsafe/unsound buildings alone belonging to the said Corporation should be held entitled for the benefit of the said DCR 33(7) aforesaid is also without any substance. Per se neither the said DCR nor Appendix III thereof says so. There is no reason as to why such a narrow interpretation of the said DCR be adopted in respect of the buildings that are owned by Corporation, Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra, which are constructed prior to 1940. It need not be emphasized here that there is a acute shortage of accommodation, especially residential accommodation even for government employees and the employees of the said Corporation, Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guards Departments of Government of Maharashtra. The only way to encourage reconstruction and redevelopment of such age old buildings is to make the benefit of said DCR available for their redevelopment so that housing stock in this regard increases, which is the acute need of the day. As a matter of policy, having failed to get enough response in this regard on account of other steps taken in that direction the DCRs have been accordingly amended from time to time and a provision has been introduced therein such as the said DCR for encouraging re-development activities in regard to such pre 1940 buildings of the said Corporation, police, Home Guard etc. which is clear from the legislative history of the said DCR set out in the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench delivered in the case of Joseph Bain D'souza (supra), that need not be restated herein. 21. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners tried to contend that the State Government in its written submissions made in some other case has almost conceded that even in respect of the buildings belonging to the second category set out in the said DCR i.e. the buildings belonging to the Corporation etc. the same interpretation should be made applicable as has been made applicable to the privately owned building by the aforesaid Judgment of the Division Bench delivered in the case of Joseph Bain D'souza (supra). He placed on record a copy of these submissions for our consideration. 22. the same interpretation should be made applicable as has been made applicable to the privately owned building by the aforesaid Judgment of the Division Bench delivered in the case of Joseph Bain D'souza (supra). He placed on record a copy of these submissions for our consideration. 22. In absence of the facts and circumstances of that case, in which such submissions were allegedly made, we are not able to appreciate the contention of the Petitioners and obviously therefore accept the same. The submissions made by the State Government in that case, a part of which was specifically read out by the Advocate of the petitioners, even otherwise does not support such contention of the petitioners. We are afraid that it will not be possible to accept this contention of the petitioners and conclude in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the alleged written submissions made on behalf of the State Government in some other unrelated matter. 23. On the contrary, it needs to be emphasised that the learned Advocate General representing the State Government in the aforesaid case of Joseph Bain D'souza (supra) specifically contended on behalf of the State Government that as far as the buildings of the said Corporation and Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra are concerned, they are not required to be old and dilapidated. The only requirement for applying the said DCR to these buildings was that such a buildings should have been put up prior to 1940. In fact on the basis of such a submission it was sought to be argued on behalf of the State in the aforesaid case of Joseph Bain D'souza (supra) that even for the privately owned buildings which are pre 1940, i.e. development be allowed even if they are in good condition. Of course, such a submission was rejected by the Division Bench. This aspect will be clear from paragraphs 41 and 42 of the said Judgment, which read thus : “41. That apart, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that there is no reason to make a distinction between the old and dilapidated buildings constructed prior to 1940 and the other buildings which are in good conditions though constructed prior to 1940. That apart, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that there is no reason to make a distinction between the old and dilapidated buildings constructed prior to 1940 and the other buildings which are in good conditions though constructed prior to 1940. There are residents who are cramped into smaller tenements even in such pre-1940 good buildings and, therefore, the occupiers of these buildings also should get an opportunity to get tenements of minimum 225 sq. ft. free of cost. In their submission, there was no reason to make such distinction between good pre-1940 buildings on one hand and the old and dilapidated pre-1940 buildings on the other hand. That apart, they of course submitted that as far as the buildings of the Corporation and the State Government's Police Department are concerned, they were not required to be old and dilapidated. The requirement for them was that they should be prior to 1940. Therefore, even the privately owned pre-1940 buildings should be deemed to be covered even if in good condition. 42. With respect to this last submission, Mr. Chenoi stated that the petition was confined only to the private sector buildings though, in his submission, even such a benefit to the Corporation or the Government buildings will mean an unjustified classification. We are not required to go into that question since the petitioners have not raised it as fairly accepted by Mr. Chenoi. It could be argued on behalf of the Municipal Corporation and State that there is a reasonable classification as far as their buildings are concerned. That apart, they are not cessed buildings. It is however possible to argue, as submitted by Mr. Chenoi, that even for them such a concession cannot be explained. In any case, this submission of the respondents cannot be permitted to be used to expand the scope of the first part of D.C. Regulation 33(7) if it was meant for a particular limited purpose. We are of the view that merely because the requirement of the buildings being dilapidated is not mentioned in the second part, it cannot be read as excluded from the first part.” (emphasis supplied) 24. We are of the view that merely because the requirement of the buildings being dilapidated is not mentioned in the second part, it cannot be read as excluded from the first part.” (emphasis supplied) 24. The phrase “which attracts the provisions of MHADA Act” appearing in the first part of said DCR was interpreted by the Division Bench by the aforesaid Judgment delivered in the case of Joseph Bain D'souza (supra) to mean that, in as much as private buildings are concerned, the said DCR will apply only and only in case of dilapidated buildings. This will be clear from the concluding portion of paragraph 54 of the said judgment, which reads thus : “54. In our view, the provision of D.C. Regulation 33 (7) is quite clear. The phrase “which attracts the provisions of MHAD Act, 1976” is used meaningfully and cannot be ignored. It can only mean that the benefit of reconstruction and extra FSI under the Regulations is available to those buildings of “A' Category which attract the provisions of the MHAD Act meaning thereby which cannot be repaired within the monetary limit specified under section 88(3) of the MHAD Act and none other. In our view, the provision is clear in this behalf and the various committee reports are a pointer towards the same and they have been referred only to place the background material on record and not to interpret the same.” (emphasis supplied) We may also note the relevant portion of paragraph 45 in this regard of the aforesaid Judgment, which reads thus : “45. We have noted the submissions of the learned counsel. The controversy turns around the question as to how one reads the phrase “which attracts the provisions of MHAD Act.” It has been a basic principle of interpretation that rules are not to be read to make any provisions superfluous. That apart, the phrase “which attract the provisions of MHAD Act” has to be read with the words “reconstruction / redevelopment”, for the reason that when it comes to the second part of this clause, which is concerning the buildings of the Corporation or of the Government, the terms “reconstruction / redevelopment” are used again. Therefore, what is contemplated in both the parts of this regulation is reconstruction / redevelopment. Therefore, what is contemplated in both the parts of this regulation is reconstruction / redevelopment. It is also material to note that the buildings, which are covered in the latter part, are not covered under the MHAD Act in the sense that they are not required to pay any cess. Therefore, as against the buildings of the Corporation or of the State Government, which are in the latter part, the buildings in the first part are referred to as those which attract the provisions of the MHAD Act. The words “which attract the provisions of the MHAD Act” cannot be read only with “cessed buildings of “A” Category in the island city.” They will have to be read along with reconstruction of cessed buildings of “A' Category. Nor can we say that the words “which attract the provisions of the MHAD Act” are superfluous. They have a relevance in the sense, as stated above, that they distinguish the privately owned buildings falling in the first category from those in the second category which are owned by the Corporation or the State Government. Mr. Singhvi had submitted that the methods in Chapters VIII and VIII-A cannot be extended beyond them. However, if the rule makers have so done it by specifically referring to the MHAD Act, we cannot ignore it.” (emphasis supplied) 25. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid phrase, viz. “which attracts the provisions of MHADA Act, 1976” appears only in the first part of the said DCR which applies to privately owned buildings. The said phrase is conspicuously absent in as much as the second part of the said DCR is concerned, which applies to the buildings of Corporation and Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra, constructed prior to 1940. Thus, the said DCR clearly draws distinction between these two sets of buildings, viz. (i) that are privately owned (ii) which are not privately owned but are buildings of Corporation and Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra constructed prior to 1940. Thus, the said DCR clearly draws distinction between these two sets of buildings, viz. (i) that are privately owned (ii) which are not privately owned but are buildings of Corporation and Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra constructed prior to 1940. Obviously, therefore the phrase “which attracts the provisions of MHADA Act, 1976” cannot be made applicable to the second part of the said DCR i.e. to the buildings which are not privately owned and are buildings of Corporation and Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra. This clear distinction between the two sets of buildings with which the said DCR deal with shows that the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench delivered in the case of Joseph Bain D'souza (supra) cannot be made applicable and/or extended to the second set of buildings dealt with by the said DCR i.e. buildings of Corporation and Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra, constructed prior to 1940. The second set of buildings with which we are concerned in this petition are class by themselves as against the first set of buildings i.e. Privately owned buildings. Even in the aforesaid Division Bench Judgment in paragraphs 42 it is observed accordingly. 26. It therefore goes without saying that the very basis on which the aforesaid Division Bench applicability of the said DCR has held that the privately owned buildings are only such buildings which cannot be repaired within the monetary limits specified under Section 88(2) of MHADA Act etc. will not apply to the second set of buildings i.e. buildings of Corporation and Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, etc. 27. It is the settled principle of law that the intention of the legislature has to be gathered from the language used in the statute which means that attention should be paid as to what has been said as also as to what has not been said. It is not the duty of the court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plane. The court can not add words to the statute or reads words into it which are not there. We may rely in this regard on :- (1) CIT Vs. It is not the duty of the court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plane. The court can not add words to the statute or reads words into it which are not there. We may rely in this regard on :- (1) CIT Vs. Tara Agencies ( 2007) 6 SCC 429 ( Para 57,58) (2) Union of India Vs. Deoki Nandan Agarwal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 (3) Nasiruddin and Ors. vs. Sita Ram Agarwal (2003)2 SCC page 577 (Para 37) 28. We may also notice that in order to avoid arbitrary development of some of land of Corporation and Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra, a safety clause has been built in the said DCR itself by way of Note appearing therein below the main part of the said DCR and before the first proviso thereof. The Note reads thus: “Note: The development of land for Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra shall be permitted by the Commissioner after due approval of the committee mentioned in Note-3 below regulation 33(3) (A)}. . It is thus clear that for development of the lands for buildings of Corporation and Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra, the Commissioner can grant permission after due approval of the Committee set out in the aforesaid Note. 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that for applicability of the said DCR 33(7) in issue, to the buildings constructed prior to 1940 of Corporation, Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra, the ratio of the Division Bench judgment delivered in the case of Joseph Bain D'souza (supra) does not at all apply. In other words, it is not at all necessary, for invoking the said DCR for reconstruction or redevelopment of pre 1940 constructed buildings of Corporation, Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra, that such building(s) should be dilapidated or structurally unsafe/unsound, as contended and/or prayed by the petitioners. 30. In other words, it is not at all necessary, for invoking the said DCR for reconstruction or redevelopment of pre 1940 constructed buildings of Corporation, Department of Police, Police Housing Corporation, Jail and Home Guard of Government of Maharashtra, that such building(s) should be dilapidated or structurally unsafe/unsound, as contended and/or prayed by the petitioners. 30. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in case the petition is dismissed, four months time be granted to the petitioners to shift to transitory accommodation offered by the developer. We do not see any reason to grant any such concession to the petitioners. As set out in the initial paragraphs of this judgment, 111 tenants / occupants along with their families have already shifted out of the said chawls almost a year ago. Similar, offers were made to the present petitioners by the developer at that time. However, the petitioners preferred not to avail that benefit. Only because the petitioners are not vacating the premises occupied by them out of the said chawls the redevelopment work supported by almost 90% of the occupants / tenants could not proceed. Moreover, as observed herein above it is also not safe for the petitioners and their families to continue to stay in the said chawls, the structures of which are not safe. In our opinion, it is in the larger public interest, including the interest of the petitioners and their families themselves that they shift to the transitory accommodation offered by the developer at the earliest and/or avail of the benefit of payment of Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent in lieu of such transitory accommodation and vacate the premises occupied by them from and out of the said chawls at the earliest. We therefore refuse to grant any concession to the petitioners as sought for. 31. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners was unable to point out any illegality in any of the NOCs / Resolutions / Permissions etc. set out in the prayer clause (b) reproduced herein above. Even otherwise we find that these NOCs / Resolutions / Permissions etc. in issue have been granted after following due procedure and in accordance with law and that no interference at all is called for in that regard in exercise of extra ordinary constitutional writ jurisdiction at our hands, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 32. Even otherwise we find that these NOCs / Resolutions / Permissions etc. in issue have been granted after following due procedure and in accordance with law and that no interference at all is called for in that regard in exercise of extra ordinary constitutional writ jurisdiction at our hands, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 32. The Petition thus fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged accordingly.