A week after the Bombay High Court granted a “last chance” and reiterated stopping transit rent payment from April 1, residents of Patra Chawl in suburban Goregaon (East) on Thursday informed the court that they were ready and willing to take possession of tenements in the rehab building.

The court directed the Chief Officer (CO) of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to hear all the parties and decide on the disputes related to the commencement of the defect liability period for the contractor, term of the lease period, lease rent and area of the land to be leased to the petitioner society Goregaon Siddharth Nagar Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Limited (known as Patra Chawl). The society had raised concerns over the rehab building’s quality, alleging falling plaster and lift malfunctions.

A bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Aarti A Sathe was also informed that third-party structural audit report confirmed the structural stability of rehab tenements. The interim report had found each of the eight buildings, which have 16 wings, to be “sound, stable and fit for habitation”.

Siddharth Nagar, which houses nearly 672 families, was vacated, and members of the society were entitled to permanent rehousing in rehab tenements. After defunct developer Guru Ashish Constructions (which later faced an Enforcement Directorate case) had defaulted, MHADA took over the responsibility of completing the project in 2018.

On March 11, HC flagged a burden of nearly Rs 18 crore on the state exchequer from delayed Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA) by Patra Chawl tenants and also ordered stopping transit rent payments from April 1.

On March 27, the HC had granted Patra Chawl members a “last chance” to enter into an agreement with MHADA to take possession of the rehab building within a week and said if disputes were not resolved, the authority could use flats for other public premises.

On Thursday, senior advocate Pradeep Sancheti for the petitioner society, told HC about willingness to take possession and said there were some loose ends or issues to be resolved.

On the issue of the defect liability period, the court accepted a submission by advocates Mahesh Londhe and Manisha Jagtap for the contractor and MHADA respectively, that it was required to be considered as per the terms of agreement entered between the contractor and the authority and the same “cannot be altered by any judicial order or at the instance of the petitioners”.

The bench said the issue related to the lease period. While the petitioners asserted that it will be extended up to 90 years, the MHADA claimed that as per the policy, it should be 30 years.

The HC said the payment of lease rent “ought not to be an issue”, as it was “negligible compared to other societies”. “Ultimately, the land belonging to the MHADA, which is a public land, is being made available to the society and whatever lease rent as per the policy of the MHADA, which becomes payable and in respect of all other similarly situated societies, the petitioners should be required to pay the same without any quarrel on such payment of lease rent,” the HC observed.

On the issue of area of the land to be leased in favour of petitioner, the society claimed it should be of 13.8 acres. However, MHADA claimed the area would be only 4.3 acres considering that the larger area of 13.18 acres has different stakeholders, while the society was only concerned with smaller portion.

The HC further asked CO of MHADA to conduct meetings with stakeholders in the presence of court observer and take decision as per law.

Posting further hearing to April 17, the court said merely because the issues are being considered, there should not be a situation where society members do not take possession or enter into PAAA.