Madras HC Gives Builder 30 Months From Permit To Build 21-Storey Replacement For Demolished Chennai Complex, With Rent Due Until Owners’ Flats Are Handed Over

The petitioner Association, representing purchasers of flats in the Jains Westminster complex, alleged structural defects and deviations from the approved plan.

On the advice of experts from IIT Madras, appointed through a Court-constituted committee of two retired High Court Judges, the existing structure was demolished in its entirety.

The Court had directed the builder to rectify defects in a revised plan and resubmit it; CMDA subsequently granted building-plan approval on 22 October 2026.

The builder still required a building permit from the Greater Chennai Corporation before construction could commence.

The Association sought, among other reliefs, continued committee oversight of reconstruction.

The builder opposed continued oversight, while CMDA submitted that the statutory authorities would inspect construction under the applicable laws and rules.

The Court applied the limits of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, observing that the High Court should not routinely supervise construction stage by stage through a court-appointed committee.

Such committees may be appointed for a limited purpose where necessary to address gross injustice.

The Court also relied on the responsibility of the competent statutory authorities, including CMDA and the Greater Chennai Corporation, to monitor construction under the applicable statutes and rules and ensure compliance with the approved plan and required standards.

No specific statutory provisions or precedents were identified in the order.

The committee had served its principal purpose: experts assessed the structural defects, and the defective building was demolished; a revised plan had since received CMDA approval.

The next phase—reconstruction—was to be undertaken by the builder and monitored by the competent statutory authorities through their prescribed inspections.

In these circumstances, continued judicial-committee supervision was unnecessary and inconsistent with the limited role of judicial review.

To protect the purchasers’ interests, the Court nevertheless directed prompt permitting and construction, required statutory inspections and expert involvement, and continued the builder’s obligation to pay rent until possession of the replacement flats.

It directed the Greater Chennai Corporation to grant the building permit within two weeks of receiving the order, subject to the builder’s compliance with legal requirements; the builder must then complete the proposed 21-storey complex within 30 months of the permit.

CMDA and the Corporation must conduct periodic inspections, and the builder must engage experts, continue monthly rent payments until handover, and comply with the Court’s timelines.

The committee was directed to transfer the rent deposits to the builder and was entitled to receive any outstanding fees.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, with liberty to the Association to return to Court in the event of the builder’s failure to meet the directions.