Can Municipality refuse to issue an occupancy certificate if the building was constructed after obtaining construction permission?

 In the circumstances, this Court is of the firm view

that when a citizen makes an application for Occupancy

Certificate in respect of a building which was constructed as

per a valid Building Permit issued prior to 30.12.2017, the

respondents cannot take umbrage under Section 14 to deny

Occupancy Certificate to the building on the ground that the

land where the construction is made is a paddy land or

wetland. {Para 14}

15. In view of the above, the petitioners are entitled to

relief. The respondent-Municipality is therefore directed to

issue Occupancy Certificate to the building constructed by the

petitioner in WP(C) No.25545/2020, if the petitioner is

otherwise eligible, within a period of one month.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) NO. 25545 OF 2020

USHA RAJAN Vs  TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY

PRESENT

 MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

Dated this the 11th day of August, 2022

Print Page

Bombay HC: Municipal Corporation should not issue occupancy certificate unless water supply is available in the the building

 We fail to understand how an “occupancy” certificate can

ever be issued to a structure that is totally unfit for human

habitation. “Occupancy” posits habitability; and an essential

requirement of any habitable premises is the provision of basic

amenities. Water and power are the most basic. It is indeed alarming that the MCGM seems to take it for granted that a building without a regular water supply can be considered habitable and eligible for an ‘occupancy’ certificate. We refuse to accept any such interpretation. To do so would be to deliver manifest injustice to residents across the city.

19. We intend to pass a direction in future that no Occupation

Certificate is to be issued unless the developer can demonstrate that he has already made preparations by laying the appropriate pipelines for connecting to the municipal mains. In high rise buildings all lifts (not construction elevators or construction lifts) must be in full working order. It must not be forgotten that when we are talking about people moving in, this includes the old and the infirm and young children as well. Saying that a building is ready but providing a staircase without a guard or a handrail is to put at risk the lives of future residents of this building. {Para 18}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 21683 OF 2022

Subodh M Joshi  Vs  Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors 

CORAM:  G.S. Patel & Gauri Godse, JJ.

DATED: 17th August 2022

Print Page

Whether continuous failure to obtain an occupancy certificate amounts to deficiency of service?

Based on these provisions, it is evident that there was an obligation on the Respondent to provide the occupancy certificate and pay for the relevant charges till the certificate has been provided. The Respondent has time and again failed to provide the occupancy certificate to the Appellant society. For this reason, a complaint was instituted in 1998 by the Appellant against the Respondent. The NCDRC on 20 August 2014 directed the Respondent to obtain the certificate within a period of four months. Further, the NCDRC also imposed a penalty for any the delay in obtaining the occupancy certificate beyond these 4 months. Since 2014 till date, the Respondent has failed to provide the occupancy certificate. Owing to the failure of the Respondent to obtain the certificate, there has been a direct impact on the members of the Appellant in terms of the payment of higher taxes and water charges to the municipal authority. This continuous failure to obtain an occupancy certificate is a breach of the obligations imposed on the Respondent under the MOFA and amounts to a continuing wrong. The Appellants therefore, are entitled to damages arising out of this continuing wrong and their complaint is not barred by limitation. {Para 18}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4000 of 2019

Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.

Author:Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Decided On: 11.01.2022

Print Page

Whether court should issue direction to municipal corporation for issue of occupancy certificate?

Though we have upheld the applicability of FSI 1:2 to the land in question for the reasons stated herein above. In so far as the directions issued to the Corporation to issue occupancy certificate to the Plaintiff is concerned, we are unable to sustain such a direction for want of jurisdiction as also could not have been issued in the absence of verification and inspection of the building by the authorities of the Corporation that as such, we direct the Plaintiff to submit an application to the Corporation for obtaining occupation certificate of the building constructed on the suit land.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 2211 of 2005

Decided On: 22.12.2017

The Municipal Corporation of City of Thane Vs.  Mukesh Ramful Gupta

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Savant and Sandeep K. Shinde, JJ.

Citation: 2018(3) MHLJ 182

Print Page

Whether Electricity company can charge higher tariff on the ground that building is not having occupancy certificate?

 This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that the
respondents have been demanding electricity consumption 
charges at three times the normal electricity charges only on the
ground that the petitioner did not secure Occupancy Certificate
from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad. 
 In my opinion, so long as respondent No.1, who is a
licensee under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, does
not amend its supply regulations/conditions in tune with the
Government policy qua levy and collection of tariff higher than
that prescribed under its Regulations, such levy cannot be
legally sustained. Being a licensee, it cannot charge its
consumers higher tariff than what is prescribed by the tariff
regulations, approved by the Regulatory Commission.
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

K.Mahender, S/o Balaiah..... Petitioner
Vs
The Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, reptd by its
Managing Director and three others......Respondents



Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy 
Writ Petition No.32906 of 2014
Date:05.11.2014 
Citation;AIR 2015 NOC234(HYD)

Print Page