MUMBAI, July 3 -- The Bombay high court on Monday asked the flat owners of the top 18 floors of a 34-storey residential building in Tardeo to clarify by July 3 if they wish to continue "illegally occupying" their homes, which do not have an occupancy certificate (OC). A division bench of justices GS Kulkarni and Arif Doctor noted that the Willingdon View high-rise only had a partial occupancy certificate (OC) for the ground-plus-16 floors, apart from several other lapses related to fire safety regulations and unauthorised changes to approved building plans. "We are of the clear opinion that those flat purchasers who are occupying flats from 17 to 34 floors, which have no occupancy certificate, are illegally occupying these flats," said the bench. "They are required to consider their position." The court was hearing a bunch of petitions concerning Willingdon View Cooperative Housing Society in Tardeo, constructed by Satellite Holdings. Construction of the building commenced in 1990, and flat owners started occupying their respective premises from 2008. As of now, 50 of the 62 flats in the high-rise are occupied. Noting that all storeys in the building were occupied despite floors 17-34 not having an OC, the judges asked whether such "daylight violations of the requirements for occupancy can at all be overlooked". They also highlighted that the 34-storey building did not have a fire NOC-a document confirming that adequate fire prevention and protection measures are in place. Considering the seriousness of the lapses, the court asked whether such a high-rise building can at all be permitted to be occupied. "To any prudent and reasonable body of person, the answer would be negative," the judges said, as they asked the occupants of flats on floors 17-34, which do not have OC, to clarify their stand by July 3, when the court is scheduled to hear the matter further. The bench added that the people living in the flats without an OC "shall continue to do so at their own risk and consequences in the event of any untoward incident, including that of fire." The court also expressed doubts about the partial OC issued to the building in 2006 for the ground-plus-16 floors, noting that it was conditional and the conditions had not been fulfilled. In this backdrop, the court directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to clarify whether any part of the building had a valid occupation certificate and what action it proposed to take if it found that the high-rise did not have an OC at all. While hearing the petitions, the bench also noted several deviations from the approved building plans. It said that some of the unauthorised changes were very serious in nature, like removing part of the slab between the 26th and 27th floors to convert the flats on the two floors into a duplex apartment. The court asked the civic body to explain why the building had a water and electricity supply despite these illegalities. "We also wonder, when such is the glaring state of affairs, as to why the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation has not taken any steps to ensure that such an illegal structure is not occupied. As to how the municipal corporation would continue to supply water and electricity to an illegal structure is also beyond our imagination," the judges said. If the BMC records that the building cannot be permitted to have a water and/or electricity supply due to the gross illegalities, the court said it "would not have any alternative but to permit the authorities to take such appropriate actions."...