MUMBAI, Nov. 6 -- After 10 years of delay, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday paved the way for the redevelopment of the Irani Chawl in Prabhadevi, ordering 15 remaining tenants to vacate the building within four weeks. The court observed that the tenants, who had resisted eviction, do not have superior rights over others and noted that a new rehabilitation building was ready for occupation. Fifteen tenants of Irani Chawl, a 66-year-old non-cessed building, had approached the high court last year, challenging an eviction order passed by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada) in September 2024. The chawl, along with an adjoining cessed building, was taken up for redevelopment as both buildings had become old and dilapidated. While 47 out of the 62 tenants in both buildings vacated their homes and accepted the permanent alternate accommodation, 15 refused to move out. They approached the high court, claiming that they were entitled to larger flats than the ones allotted to them in the newly constructed rehabilitation building. Advocate Uday Bobde, representing the petitioners, submitted that they were being granted homes that were 45 square feet smaller than those given to the residents of the adjoining cessed building. Mhada's counsel, advocate PG Lad, countered that it was incorrect of the petitioners to hold the project ransom by not vacating their tenements. She added that the petitioners, being in a minority, cannot bring the entire project to a standstill merely because they are a part of a non-cessed building. A division bench of justices GS Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe agreed with Mhada, observing that the petitioners have no legal right to obstruct the project. "Unless rights regarding the entitlement of the petitioners to a tenement of bigger flats are recognised under law or any statutory provision, they cannot assert an entitlement to that effect and maintain such a plea," the bench said. The court further remarked that the petitioners objecting to the rehabilitation at such an advanced stage of the project was "not only mischievous, but wholly untenable." The tenants were well aware that the permanent alternate tenements were already constructed, and the old building would now have to be demolished, the court added. "Thus, the assertion of the petitioners for more area and the resistance to not vacate their existing tenements, more particularly, when a majority of the tenants of the non-cessed building have vacated, looked from any angle, is untenable in law," the bench said....