Saira Banu writes to CM Devendra Fadnavis alleging harassment by builder in property dispute

On 13 December, veteran actor Saira Banu, wrote to Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis alleging that a builder — Samir Bhojwani — was threatening to oust her and her husband Dilip Kumar from their residence in Pali Hill, Mumbai.[caption id="attachment_4258225" align="alignnone" width="825"] Saira Banu's letter to CM Devendra Fadnavis. Image from Facebook/Uttam Ramola[/caption][caption id="attachment_4258223" align="alignnone" width="825"] Saira Banu's letter to CM Devendra Fadnavis. Image from Facebook/Uttam Ramola[/caption][caption id="attachment_4258221" align="alignnone" width="825"] Saira Banu's letter to CM Devendra Fadnavis. Image from Facebook/Uttam Ramola[/caption][caption id="attachment_4258219" align="alignnone" width="825"] Saira Banu's letter to CM Devendra Fadnavis. Image from Facebook/Uttam Ramola[/caption]Banu's letter to the CM requested him to protect them (her and her husband) from Bhojwani. Banu alleged that the builder had faked documents in his bid to seize the couple's property, along with threatening the elderly pair to hand over their property to him.Earlier in August this year, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Banu and Kumar in their long drawn legal battle over the Bandra property. 2,412 square yards in size, the Pali Hill property was bought by Dilip Kumar alias Yusuf Khan in 1953. In 2006, Kumar entered into an agreement with Prajita Developers Pvt Ltd which entailed developing the property further. However, no construction took place. The court restored possession of the house to Kumar and asked him to return Rs 20 crore to Prajita Developers Pvt Ltd.[caption id="attachment_4252911" align="alignnone" width="825"] Saira Banu and Dilip Kumar. Image from Twitter/@nitzrulzx412.[/caption]Bhojwani on the other hand, claims that the property was purchased in 1980 by NN Bhojwani, his late father, from the Mulraj Khatau Trust. "In 2010, after the bungalow was demolished, I filed a case for vacant possession because the lessee had breached the covenant of the lease," said Bhojwani, according to a Time of India report.