A PIL filed by former BMC chief J B D’Souza, activist Cyrus Guzder and structural engineer Shirish Patel had challenged the rule on the grounds that the number of tenants was being inflated by builders to derive maximum profit out of the provision. They also stated that non-cessed buildings were being converted to cessed ones to bring them under the redevelopment scheme.

In its interim order the High Court had restrained the government from granting base FSI in excess of 2.5. It later said that only those buildings that are declared dilapidated by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), where it certified that the cost of structural repairs would exceed Rs 1,200 for every square-metre, can be taken up under DCR 33 (7).

Stating that “the high court was not justified in reading additional requirements into regulation 33 (7) after holding the same to be valid”, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that A class cessed buildings that are taken up for redevelopment need not be certified dilapidated by MHADA. It also quashed the high court directive that stipulated a maximum distance of 3.6 metres between two buildings post redevelopment.

“As per DCR 33 (7), the tenants have to be rehabilitated in minimum 225 sq ft tenements. Suppose the tenant stays in an 80 sq ft house and there are 120 such tenants in the building, the rehabilitation component itself goes up to 5 and with the incentive the total FSI consumed had to be 7.5,” said Joaquim Reis, counsel for developers.

“The order is a bonanza for developers who want to take up redevelopment in South Mumbai. However with a sudden increase in towers coming up on narrow roads, the infrastructure in the island city will take a beating,” said property advocate Vinod Sampat.