Mumbai: Residents Battle Developers Over Misuse of Welfare Centre as Restaurant

Mumbai: A dispute over the use of common space in a Bandra West residential building has reached the City Civil Court, raising larger questions about urban governance, residents’ rights, and alleged municipal inaction.

The case concerns Pooja Robert Ark CHS Ltd, a 40-flat housing society located on Chinchpokli Road in Bandra West. According to the sanctioned building plan, the ground floor premises were reserved for a welfare centre. However, the space has been operating as a restaurant, first under the name The Tha’l Co and later reportedly leased to another eatery, East 7th. Two residents of the society, Mark Henriques and Vanessa Khatu (née Henriques), filed a civil suit against Narendra Bhatia and Avinash Bhatia, directors of ABS Hotel and Company, which runs the restaurant.

The Bhatias are also the developers of the building. The suit was also filed against officials of the BMC, alleging failure to act against the commercial use of a space designated for welfare purposes. Pending the suit, the residents moved a notice of motion in 2023 seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the developers from operating any restaurant on the premises.

Earlier this month, the court allowed the notice of motion and granted interim relief, temporarily restraining the Bhatias from running the restaurant. However, the order has been stayed for four weeks to allow the developers to approach the High Court. Counsel for the petitioners, Savio Viegas, argued that the BMC’s conduct was questionable, alleging that the civic body had failed to initiate legal action and instead supported the developers in court by stating that a licence had been requisitioned to run the restaurant.

In their defence, the Bhatias claimed that the ground floor had been approved for residential use and that they had later sought a change in the plan after a proposed NGO office did not materialise. They maintained that, as private owners, they were entitled to seek appropriate permissions for change of use and argued that the residents lacked locus standi to file the suit.

The court, however, rejected this contention, observing that as society members, the residents had every right to approach the court and seek interim relief. It also noted the absence of any documentary proof showing that the premises had been sanctioned for use as a restaurant, marriage hall, or exhibition centre. Prima facie, the court held, the developers appeared to have encroached upon space reserved for a welfare centre without a sanctioned plan, and the BMC had failed to place relevant approvals on record.

This case highlights the ongoing struggles in urban areas where common spaces are often misused, leading to conflicts between residents and developers. It underscores the importance of strict adherence to building plans and the need for effective municipal oversight to protect the rights of residents in housing societies.