The Times of India: Mumbai:Friday, March 02, 2012.
Think twice before making alterations to your flat or merging your apartment with the adjacent one you have recently bought without taking the authorities' permission.
A metropolitan magistrate's court held Dahisar resident Seigfred Mendosa (44) guilty of merging two flats without BMC permission and fined him Rs 10,000. "There is independent evidence (information under RTI) that no permission was granted to the accused for the amalgamation of flats," ruled metropolitan magistrate P G Bhosale of the Vile Parle court. "I hold the accused guilty." The fine can be anything between Rs 5,000 and Rs 25,000, but the judge said he "would try to keep a balance by imposing a reasonable amount" .
Admitting that he had indeed merged two flats before receiving the occupation certificate , Mendosa told TOI, "I have paid the fine amount and rectified the changes as I did not want my family to suffer." Under section 347 (c) of the BMC Act, no alteration can be made to a residential building , plans for which have been approved by the corporation. Once a plan is sanctioned and flats built, any change-be it setting up a partition, demolishing walls, merging flats or using a residential apartment flat as a warehouse-require the permission of the civic chief, according to lawyers.
Mendonsa, a resident of Raghuvihar Cooperative Housing Society in Dahisar (W), had merged two flats. In May 2010, his neighbour K J Sebastian lodged a complaint with the BMC and also stated that Mendonsa had built a door to connect the drawing rooms of the two flats. Further, without the BMC's nod, a bathroom in one of the flats was turned into a kitchen, Sebastian said. When BMC delayed taking action against Mendosa, Sebastain filed a query under the RTI Act, which goaded the corporation to issue a notice to the accused. The BMC lodged a case before the metropolitan magistrate, when Mendonsa failed to comply with its notice to restore the flats to its original condition.
Mendonsa alleged that Sebastian had complained as they were on bad terms. He also said Sebastian himself had not paid maintenance charges. But the court pointed at evidence submitted by the BMC that showed Mendonsa had merged the flats without permission, even as it held that the accused had flouted rules.
A metropolitan magistrate's court held Dahisar resident Seigfred Mendosa (44) guilty of merging two flats without BMC permission and fined him Rs 10,000. "There is independent evidence (information under RTI) that no permission was granted to the accused for the amalgamation of flats," ruled metropolitan magistrate P G Bhosale of the Vile Parle court. "I hold the accused guilty." The fine can be anything between Rs 5,000 and Rs 25,000, but the judge said he "would try to keep a balance by imposing a reasonable amount" .
Admitting that he had indeed merged two flats before receiving the occupation certificate , Mendosa told TOI, "I have paid the fine amount and rectified the changes as I did not want my family to suffer." Under section 347 (c) of the BMC Act, no alteration can be made to a residential building , plans for which have been approved by the corporation. Once a plan is sanctioned and flats built, any change-be it setting up a partition, demolishing walls, merging flats or using a residential apartment flat as a warehouse-require the permission of the civic chief, according to lawyers.
Mendonsa, a resident of Raghuvihar Cooperative Housing Society in Dahisar (W), had merged two flats. In May 2010, his neighbour K J Sebastian lodged a complaint with the BMC and also stated that Mendonsa had built a door to connect the drawing rooms of the two flats. Further, without the BMC's nod, a bathroom in one of the flats was turned into a kitchen, Sebastian said. When BMC delayed taking action against Mendosa, Sebastain filed a query under the RTI Act, which goaded the corporation to issue a notice to the accused. The BMC lodged a case before the metropolitan magistrate, when Mendonsa failed to comply with its notice to restore the flats to its original condition.
Mendonsa alleged that Sebastian had complained as they were on bad terms. He also said Sebastian himself had not paid maintenance charges. But the court pointed at evidence submitted by the BMC that showed Mendonsa had merged the flats without permission, even as it held that the accused had flouted rules.
.JPG)
.JPG)
