MUMBAI, Dec. 13 -- The Bombay High Court recently allowed the Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority (Mhada) to proceed with the redevelopment of several dilapidated south Mumbai buildings that were earlier served illegal redevelopment notices, provided the projects had the consent of the landlords and over 51% of the tenants. However, considering the notices were issued illegally, the court directed an inquiry to continue into the matter. The issue dates back to 2024, when Mhada issued redevelopment notices to 935 "dangerous and dilapidated" buildings located in upmarket south Mumbai areas, such as Banganga Road, Walkeshwar, Gamdevi Road, BG Kher Marg, and Nepean Sea Road. Subsequently, a bunch of petitions were filed in the high court challenging these redevelopment notices. The petitions claimed that engineers from the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), a Mhada unit, had issued the notices without jurisdiction and based on only a "visual inspection," without conducting a structural audit of the buildings. The entire controversy revolves around section 79-A of the Mhada Act, which allows the authority to initiate the redevelopment of dangerously dilapidated cessed buildings if neither the owner nor the tenants take the necessary steps within a specified timeframe. Earlier this year, the court had observed that a Mhada executive engineer had no jurisdiction to issue the redevelopment notices, adding that their action appeared to be high-handed. Calling it a "colossal misuse" of authority, the high court had in July appointed a two-member committee to investigate the "racket". The committee held multiple meetings and considered requests made by several of the buildings' landlords and over 51% of their tenants to proceed with a joint-redevelopment proposal. Following this, Mhada sought clarification from the high court to avoid stalling these projects. Despite the "flawed" notices issued under section 79-A, a division bench of justices GS Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe on December 5 allowed redevelopment to go ahead in cases where consent is undisputed. "Considering that the tenants and the landlords themselves have consented to proceed with the redevelopment, these are clear and undisputed positions arising from the consent of the parties, that the redevelopment needs to proceed," the court said. However, the court clarified that the issuance of a notice under section 79-A without the municipal corporation declaring the building dilapidated is illegal....