Rustomjee Crown residents say they expected an ordinary municipal inspection on Aug. 24. Instead, they say, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation began demolishing disputed foyer structures inside their apartments, turning a long-running dispute over spaces they say were sold and approved as part of their homes into a fight over who should bear responsibility.
The residents' account comes as the Bombay High Court has ordered the civic body to maintain a status quo on further demolitions at the Mumbai luxury residential project until the next hearing on Sept. 16. The court passed the order on Sept. 3 after residents told it that demolition action had begun. BMC told the court that demolition of 20 structures had been completed and that further demolition was underway.
The dispute centres on foyer areas adjoining apartments in Towers A and B of Rustomjee Crown. Residents say these spaces were not created later as unauthorised extensions but were part of the configuration presented to buyers, reflected in project and commercial documents and incorporated into fit-out plans.
According to a residents' fact dossier shared for media reference, residents received a communication dated Aug. 19 saying BMC would visit the society on Aug. 24 for an ordinary inspection. They were asked to cooperate with the inspection, including measurements and photographs.
Residents say the events that followed were very different.
The demolition took place on Aug. 24 and that no Rustomjee officials intervened during the action. The account has become a central point of frustration for homeowners who say they believed the developer was handling communications with the civic authorities.
“We did not buy an unfinished shell from an unknown builder and then create unauthorized spaces ourselves,” one resident said. “We paid a premium for a Rustomjee Crown home because we believed the plans, spaces and configuration presented to us by an established developer could be relied upon. To now have those very spaces questioned by BMC has left us feeling completely misled.”
Residents say the foyers were presented as an exclusive feature of the apartments. They point to marketing material and show-apartment configurations that displayed enclosed foyer spaces with doors, cupboards, seating and other interior elements.
They also say the foyer areas appeared in costing sheets alongside RERA carpet area, forming what was described as net usable area. According to the residents, registered sale agreements defined the premises as comprising the apartment and foyer, with buyers paying consideration and applicable stamp duty and registration charges for those premises.
The residents further say their fit-out plans showed the foyer enclosures and that the developer approved those fit-outs. In several cases, they say, interior work was carried out by Key Interiors Realtors Pvt. Ltd., which they identify as a Rustomjee group company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Keystone Realtors Ltd.
“Our interiors were not executed by some clandestine outside contractor,” another resident said. “We engaged and paid a company within the Rustomjee group for substantial design and fit-out work. If the work that the authorities now object to formed part of that design, Rustomjee cannot credibly treat this as an independent act of the homeowner.”
Residents say the issue was not confined to a handful of flats. They estimate that about 95% of apartments in Towers A and B have the relevant foyer configuration.
“One homeowner can perhaps be accused of making a mistake,” a resident said. “When similar regulatory issues arise in a number of apartments across the same luxury development, the obvious question is whether there is a systemic problem in what was designed, sold, approved or facilitated.”
The residents' documents also raise questions about different versions of sanctioned plans. They say there appears to be a discrepancy between the sanctioned-plan versions attached to certain registered agreements in 2023 and 2024 and later versions available in BMC records. They are seeking clarity on the approval history and the communications and submissions made to the civic body.
The residents say they had also been asked to provide authorisations for Rustomjee representatives to communicate with or represent them before BMC. They say this left them with limited visibility into the communications, submissions and representations made during the municipal proceedings.
“When the municipal proceedings started, we continued to look to the Rustomjee team for guidance,” a resident said. “Residents were told to wait for next steps and were asked to authorize representatives to attend BMC hearings. We relied on them. We are now being forced to protect ourselves independently because our homes are at risk.”
ALSO READ: Rustomjee Crown Foyer Demolition: Developer Says No Violation, Calls Plea 'Misconceived'
The Bombay High Court has not yet ruled on the underlying dispute.
In its Sept. 3 order, the court recorded that residents had approached it while BMC demolition action was underway. BMC's counsel told the court that demolition relating to 20 structures had been completed and that further demolition was underway. The court then directed the municipal corporation to “stay its hands” on demolitions in the buildings until the next date, noting that the flats had been occupied by the plaintiffs since 2021.
The court has listed the matter for Sept. 16.
For the residents, the immediate relief does not resolve the larger question of how the foyer configurations came to exist or who should bear responsibility if the civic authorities ultimately find them non-compliant.
“We are not asking to be placed above the law, and we are not asking BMC to ignore genuine violations,” a resident said. “We are asking that responsibility be placed where it belongs. Before residents' homes are demolished, the authorities and the public deserve to know who designed these configurations, who sold them, who approved the fit-outs and who represented that permissions would be obtained.”
Residents are seeking disclosure of the approval history, including sanctioned plans, revised plans, approval applications and communications with BMC. They also want the developer to take responsibility for configurations they say it sold, supplied, designed, executed or authorised.
The residents' documents say the society has not yet been formally handed over and that the usual post-handover framework has not been fully operationalised.
Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.