MHADA Regulation 33(5) vs MCGM Regulation 33(24) Redevelopment

Vikrant D. Shetty

Aug 24

10 min read

Updated: Aug 26

MHADA Regulation 33(5) vs MCGM Regulation 33(24) Redevelopment

Regulation 33(5) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034 governs redevelopment of MHADA's own housing colonies, where occupants hold an ownership interest, while Regulation 33(24) governs redevelopment of tenanted buildings whose occupants hold tenancy rights rather than ownership. These tenanted buildings were either built by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority under a slum clearance scheme or are owned outright by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. FSI, rehabilitation entitlement, and the controlling authority differ materially between the two regulations. This post compares both regimes and a recent Bombay High Court ruling on tenant obstruction.

Two Regulations for Two Different Ownership Structures

Regulation 33(5): Redeveloping MHADA's Own Layouts

Regulation 33(5) governs redevelopment of existing MHADA layouts containing Economically Weaker Section (EWS), Low Income Group (LIG), Middle Income Group (MIG), or High Income Group (HIG) tenements, the housing stock MHADA itself constructed and allotted over the decades under its various schemes. It permits an FSI of 3.0 on the existing layout, rising to 4.0 for larger plots exceeding 4,000 square metres that abut an 18-metre wide road. Occupants are entitled to rehabilitation area equal to their existing tenement area plus an additional 35 percent, and the redevelopment is typically carried out either by MHADA itself, by a developer appointed through MHADA's tendering process, or, in more recent policy iterations, through self-redevelopment undertaken directly by the co-operative housing society formed by the original allottees. Because MHADA is the original developer and continuing landlord of the layout, its role in a Regulation 33(5) project is that of the originating authority whose consent and participation the redevelopment scheme is built around from the outset.

Regulation 33(24): Redeveloping Tenanted Buildings

Regulation 33(24) addresses a different situation: buildings where the occupants are tenants, not owners, and where the underlying building was either constructed by MHADA under a slum clearance scheme or is owned by MCGM and let out to occupiers on a rental basis. Eligibility under this regulation additionally requires that the building be at least 30 years old, or have been declared structurally dangerous by the relevant technical authority, whichever is earlier. Where a Regulation 33(24) redevelopment is combined with the fungible FSI and other incentive provisions under Regulation 33(12)(A) or 33(12)(B), the combined FSI is subject to an upper cap of 4.0 on the net plot area, a ceiling that does not apply in quite the same form to a standalone Regulation 33(5) MHADA layout redevelopment.

Who Controls a Redevelopment Project, MHADA or MCGM?

The most consequential practical difference is who effectively controls the redevelopment. Under Regulation 33(5), MHADA's ownership of the underlying land and its historical role as landlord of the layout mean that MHADA's institutional consent is baked into the process, even where a private developer or the society itself executes the project. Under Regulation 33(24), by contrast, the building may be owned by MCGM rather than MHADA, and the Municipal Corporation's own departments, including its Estate Department for MCGM-owned tenanted buildings, become the relevant counterpart whose permissions and no-objection certificates the redevelopment depends on. A society or developer that assumes MHADA has jurisdiction over a Regulation 33(24) building simply because MHADA administers slum clearance schemes generally can lose considerable time discovering that the specific building in question is, in fact, MCGM-owned and governed by an entirely separate set of municipal approvals.

Ownership Interest vs Tenancy: The Conceptual Dividing Line

Tenancy status itself is the conceptual dividing line worth dwelling on. A Regulation 33(5) MHADA layout typically involves occupants who hold some form of ownership or allotment interest in their tenement, even if that interest originated in a government housing scheme decades earlier, so the redevelopment negotiation is, broadly, an owner-to-owner transaction mediated by MHADA as the landowner. A Regulation 33(24) building, by definition, involves tenants who do not own their premises and whose rights are governed by tenancy law, principally the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, superseding the earlier Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 framework. This distinction shapes what a redevelopment negotiation is actually about: under Regulation 33(24), the developer or authority is negotiating rehabilitation terms with tenants whose continued occupancy right survives demolition and reconstruction, not owners disposing of a proprietary interest.

Can a Tenant Block Redevelopment by Challenging the Building's Structural Classification?

The Bombay High Court's approach to tenant obstruction in exactly this kind of dilapidated, tenanted building context is instructive. In Khimjibhai Patadia v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai [Writ Petition (L) No. 30632 of 2024, Bombay High Court], a tenant in an eighty-three-year-old building challenged the Technical Advisory Committee's classification of the structure as C-1 (dangerous and beyond repair), seeking an independent structural audit and an injunction against demolition. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that a tenant cannot use a writ petition to challenge a technical structural classification, that such matters are properly left to qualified experts rather than relitigated in court, and that a tenant's occupancy rights remain protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 through the redevelopment and reconstruction process regardless of the building's structural fate. The Court imposed costs as a deterrent against what it characterised as an attempt to use repeated litigation to delay redevelopment for collateral advantage. The underlying principle, that tenancy protection under rent control law and the technical necessity of redeveloping a dangerous structure are not mutually exclusive, applies with equal force whether the tenanted building in question falls under Regulation 33(24) or is simply a private cessed building being redeveloped under Regulation 33(7).

Calculating Rehabilitation Entitlement: A Frequent Source of Dispute

Rehabilitation entitlement calculations also diverge in a way that generates disputes. A Regulation 33(5) MHADA occupant's entitlement is calculated by reference to the existing tenement area plus the fixed 35 percent addition, a relatively mechanical formula once the existing area is verified. A Regulation 33(24) tenant's entitlement, by contrast, is often calculated by reference to the tenanted area actually occupied under the tenancy, which can be a more contested factual question where historical records are incomplete, where premises have been informally subdivided among family members over generations, or where the distinction between the originally let area and subsequently encroached or added area is unclear. Disputes over exactly how much rehabilitation area a given tenant is entitled to are correspondingly more common, and more fact-intensive, under Regulation 33(24) than under the comparatively formulaic Regulation 33(5) approach.

Self-Redevelopment: An Option With an Uneven Threshold

Self-redevelopment, where the co-operative housing society or the tenants' association itself takes on the developer's role rather than engaging an outside builder, has gained policy traction under Regulation 33(5) in recent years, supported by financing arrangements involving nationalised banks and MHADA's own facilitation. Whether an equivalent self-redevelopment route is realistically available under Regulation 33(24) depends heavily on whether the tenants, as a body, are organised into a legal entity capable of contracting for construction finance and taking on project risk, which is a materially harder threshold for a group of tenants without ownership interests than for a co-operative society of MHADA allottees with a defined proprietary stake in the outcome.

What Happens When MHADA and MCGM Jurisdiction Is Unclear?

A recurring point of controversy concerns buildings that were originally constructed by MHADA under a slum clearance scheme but were subsequently transferred to, or have always been administered jointly with, MCGM for maintenance purposes. Where ownership or administrative responsibility for a tenanted building is genuinely unclear or contested between the two authorities, tenants and prospective developers can face a threshold dispute over which authority's consent is actually required before redevelopment can proceed, a dispute that has nothing to do with the physical condition of the building or the willingness of tenants to redevelop, and everything to do with unresolved institutional record-keeping. Establishing clear title and administrative jurisdiction before initiating the Regulation 33(24) process is accordingly a necessary preliminary step that is easy to underestimate.

Regulation 33(5) vs Regulation 33(24): Key Differences

Aspect	Regulation 33(5)	Regulation 33(24)
Building type	MHADA's own EWS/LIG/MIG/HIG housing colonies	MHADA slum clearance tenanted buildings or MCGM-owned tenanted buildings
Occupant status	Ownership or allotment interest	Tenancy, governed by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
FSI	3.0, rising to 4.0 for larger plots on wide roads	Subject to FSI cap of 4.0 on net plot area when combined with Reg. 33(12)
Rehabilitation formula	Existing area plus 35% additional area	Based on area actually occupied under the tenancy, more fact-intensive
Implementing authority	MHADA as original developer and landlord	MHADA or MCGM, depending on which authority owns the building
Self-redevelopment feasibility	Increasingly supported by policy and financing	Harder to organise given tenants' lack of ownership interest

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between Regulation 33(5) and Regulation 33(24) of the DCPR 2034?

Regulation 33(5) governs redevelopment of MHADA's own housing colonies containing EWS, LIG, MIG, or HIG tenements, where occupants generally hold an ownership or allotment interest. Regulation 33(24) governs redevelopment of tenanted buildings, either MHADA slum clearance scheme buildings or MCGM-owned buildings, where occupants hold tenancy rights rather than ownership.

What FSI is available for MHADA layout redevelopment under Regulation 33(5)?

An FSI of 3.0 applies generally, rising to 4.0 for plots exceeding 4,000 square metres that abut an 18-metre wide road, with rehabilitation entitlement equal to the existing tenement area plus an additional 35 percent.

What are the eligibility criteria for a building to qualify for redevelopment under Regulation 33(24)?

The building must be either a MHADA slum clearance scheme structure or an MCGM-owned tenanted building let out on a rental basis, and it must be at least 30 years old or have been declared structurally dangerous, whichever occurs earlier.

Can a tenant block redevelopment of a dilapidated building by challenging its structural classification in court?

Generally not on that basis alone. The Bombay High Court in the Khimjibhai Patadia case held that a technical structural classification is a matter for qualified experts rather than for a writ court, and that tenancy rights under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 remain protected through the redevelopment process independent of that classification.

Is self-redevelopment available for tenanted buildings under Regulation 33(24)?

It is theoretically possible but considerably harder to organise than under Regulation 33(5), since it requires the tenants, who lack ownership interests, to form a legal entity capable of taking on construction financing and project risk, a threshold that MHADA allottees with a defined proprietary stake generally clear more easily.

How is a tenant's rehabilitation entitlement calculated under Regulation 33(24) compared to Regulation 33(5)?

A Regulation 33(5) MHADA occupant's entitlement follows a relatively mechanical formula, existing tenement area plus 35 percent. A Regulation 33(24) tenant's entitlement is calculated by reference to the area actually occupied under the tenancy, which is more frequently disputed where historical records are incomplete or premises have been informally altered over time.

What happens if it is unclear whether MHADA or MCGM has jurisdiction over a tenanted building proposed for redevelopment?

Establishing clear administrative jurisdiction and title is a necessary preliminary step, since redevelopment cannot proceed under Regulation 33(24) until the correct authority's consent has been obtained, and disputes over which authority actually administers a given building can delay a project independent of its physical condition or tenant consent.

Does a tenant under Regulation 33(24) keep occupancy rights during demolition and reconstruction of the building?

Yes. A tenant's occupancy rights under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 survive the physical demolition and reconstruction of a Regulation 33(24) building. The Bombay High Court's approach in the Khimjibhai Patadia case confirms that a building's structural condition and a tenant's continuing tenancy protection are treated as separate questions: the building can be classified as dangerous and demolished for redevelopment while the tenant's statutory right to reoccupy the reconstructed premises under the tenancy remains intact.

Can the fungible FSI incentives under Regulation 33(12) be combined with a Regulation 33(5) MHADA layout redevelopment the same way they can with Regulation 33(24)?

Not in the same form. Regulation 33(24) redevelopment combined with the fungible FSI incentives under Regulation 33(12)(A) or 33(12)(B) is capped at an overall FSI of 4.0 on the net plot area. Regulation 33(5) MHADA layout redevelopment instead follows its own fixed scale, an FSI of 3.0 rising to 4.0 only for plots exceeding 4,000 square metres that abut an 18-metre wide road, and this ceiling operates independently of the Regulation 33(12) fungible FSI framework rather than through combination with it.

What makes self-redevelopment financially feasible for a MHADA co-operative housing society under Regulation 33(5)?

Self-redevelopment under Regulation 33(5) has gained traction because nationalised banks now offer construction finance directly to co-operative housing societies, and MHADA provides procedural facilitation to allottee societies undertaking the project themselves rather than engaging an outside developer. This combination lets a society with a defined proprietary stake in the outcome take on construction risk directly. The same route is considerably harder to organise under Regulation 33(24), where tenants lack an ownership interest and must first form a legal entity capable of contracting for finance.

Why does it matter whether MHADA or MCGM holds administrative jurisdiction before a Regulation 33(24) project begins?

A tenanted building's redevelopment under Regulation 33(24) cannot proceed until the correct authority's consent is obtained, and some buildings originally built by MHADA under a slum clearance scheme were later transferred to or jointly administered with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for maintenance. Where records leave this unclear, tenants and developers face a threshold dispute over which authority actually controls the building, unrelated to its physical condition or the tenants' willingness to redevelop. Confirming title and jurisdiction before initiating the process avoids this delay.

Does the MCGM Estate Department handle every Regulation 33(24) redevelopment, or only some of them?

Only some. The MCGM Estate Department is the relevant counterpart specifically for tenanted buildings that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai owns outright. Where the building instead falls under a MHADA slum clearance scheme, MHADA remains the relevant authority rather than MCGM. Because Regulation 33(24) covers both categories of building, a society or developer should first confirm which authority actually owns the specific structure before assuming the Estate Department's involvement is automatic.

What is the practical difference between a redevelopment's permissible FSI and an occupant's rehabilitation entitlement?

Floor space index, or FSI, sets the total built-up area a developer may construct on the plot relative to its size, and determines how much saleable area is available once occupants are rehabilitated. Rehabilitation entitlement is the specific area given back to each existing occupant, calculated under Regulation 33(5) as the existing tenement area plus 35 percent, and under Regulation 33(24) by reference to the area actually occupied under the tenancy. FSI governs the project's overall scale; rehabilitation entitlement governs what each occupant individually receives.