Servai Tower

• The land is freehold, it stands in the developer's own name under a registered conveyance of February 2021, and the advocate's opinion is that the title is clear and marketable without encumbrances.
• Landowner and developer are the same entity — there is no constituted-attorney arrangement, no revenue share and no separate owner lurking in the charge record.
• Against most of what the Rexray set sees, that is a strong starting position.

• The devolution is a Parsi family story that runs cleanly enough once you follow it.
• A 1936 settlement, an indenture of 1972 splitting the property four ways, wills in 2007 and 2012, a contested probate that reached a judgment in December 2016 and then an appeal, and consent terms in April 2018 under which two cousins became equal owners and one sold his half to the other.
• The developer bought the whole in 2021 and corrected a misspelling of its own name by a rectification deed in 2022.

• Three things remain open and each is answerable with a document.
• The land register still records the four original family holders: the developer applied to have its name entered in September 2021 and, five years on, the sale agreement of March 2026 still says only that it 'has applied'.
• The seventy-three year search is qualified on its own face — the advocate states that entries for the whole period from 1983 to 2022 may not be reflected, because registers are missing or torn and indices for 2020 to 2022 were never prepared.
• And three flats in this building stand mortgaged to a tenants' association, which the sale agreement does not mention.

• This building is done.
• The municipality issued a full occupation and building completion certificate for the entire structure on 5 February 2026, the day after the Chief Fire Officer signed off, and the certificate prints the whole as-built stack floor by floor and a total height of 69.90 metres.
• The project's own registered completion date was 31 December 2026, so it finished roughly ten months inside its deadline.

• The permission chain tracked the build rather than lagging behind it, which is the opposite of what the Rexray set usually finds.
• Plinth level in November 2022, extended to the top of the sixteenth floor in October 2023, to the twentieth in October 2024, and to the top of the twenty-first including the lift machine room and overhead tanks — a full certificate for the entire work — in February 2025.
• There is no lapsed permission anywhere in the operative chain and nothing was ever sold above what had been sanctioned.

• Two reservations, both modest.
• The full certificate's stated validity ran to November 2025 and the copy in the file was printed in February 2025, so it cannot show a later renewal — the occupation certificate that followed makes the point academic.
• And this is a single-project developer with no track record anywhere in the Rexray builder register, so there is nothing to test the result against.
• A finished, certified building is the strongest possible first entry, but it is a first entry.

• This is the worst regulatory record in the Tardeo set, and the way to see how bad is to match two numbers.
• The portal states the permissible built-up area as 3,343.10 square metres and the sanctioned area as 3,179.96.
• Those figures match the superseded December 2021 area statement to the second decimal.
• So the record is not vaguely out of date — it is keyed to a sanction that was replaced three times over, which means its unit count, its parking count and its area statement are all describing a different building.

• Everything else on the record follows from that.
• It lists seventeen apartments against twenty-four flats on the sanctioned statement.
• It lists twenty-one covered parking bays against forty-eight.
• Its commencement-certificate table renders as a single blank row although four endorsements exist.
• It records no occupation certificate at all, six months after full occupation was granted.
• Its financial-encumbrance field reads No while the developer's own filed declarations disclose a mortgage.
• And nothing has been filed for four quarters — the last architect's and engineer's certificates are dated to 30 June 2025.

• The mitigation is real and worth stating: the building is finished and certified, so none of this is dangerous to a buyer who obtains the certificates directly.
• What it means is that the public register cannot be used as a check on anything.
• A resale buyer or a lender who pulls it first will see a half-built project, no completion certificate and an understated envelope, and will have to be walked back from all three.

• There is no brochure for this project.
• The entire marketing surface is five renders — two elevations and three floor plates — and the first thing to say about them is that they are unusually restrained.
• No floor count is claimed, no view is named, no amenity list is printed, and the two lifts drawn on the plates are exactly the two lifts that exist.
• In a corpus full of sixty-storey claims on thirty-three storey sanctions, that deserves credit and gets it.

• What the marketing does do is draw the car park as housing.
• The elevation carries an unbroken rhythm of glazing and balconies from the entrance canopy to the parapet, so the tower reads as roughly twenty-one storeys of apartments.
• Five of those floors hold an automated car stack and commercial units, and homes do not begin until the sixth.
• No number is false — approved, target and marketed floor counts all agree — but a buyer reading the elevation cannot tell that the first five levels above the door hold cars.

• The renders also show fully finished interiors — fitted kitchens, wardrobes, timber floors — on apartments the registered agreement delivers as a bare shell with nothing but windows and a front door.
• And neither the marketing nor the agreement anywhere says that this is a cessed-building redevelopment in which rehabilitation takes half the floor area, that six floors are commercial, that a sixth of the envelope is floor area imported from another property, or that three flats are mortgaged.
• The pattern is consistent: what is stated is accurate, and the omissions are structural.

• Take the boundaries one at a time, because they do different things.
• The north-east is already blocked — a recently completed building slightly taller than this one stands on that arc.
• The east is a blind service wall by design: the lift core, staircase and shafts occupy that end of the plate and not one habitable room faces east, so whatever happens to the corner building there is a density question rather than a view one.
• The south will be blocked on most floors by Wallace Apartments.

• The west is the interesting one because it splits in two.
• Girton School shares the plot line, and an institutional low-rise on a boundary is durable protection in a way a family estate is not — it is the only edge of this site with a structural reason to stay low, and it shields the west end of both apartments as far as its own depth.
• But immediately beyond the school, two towers are coming: a thirty-three storey building due for possession in 2027, and a second due in 2030.
• Both will stand in the west arc.

• That leaves north and north-west, which are relatively open today.
• What they are open over is low-rise society stock in New Chikhalwadi — the same kind of building this tower replaced, on the same street, with the same economics.
• Treat the clearance as temporary rather than as a feature.

• One genuine and permanent advantage runs against all of this and should not be lost.
• The first home sits about 22.45 metres above the road, above five levels of car stack and a service floor, so nothing low on any of these boundaries reaches any apartment in the building — the low-floor view discount that applies almost everywhere else simply does not exist here.
• The limit of that advantage is equally clear: a thirty-three storey tower is not a low object, and a deep podium buys nothing against it.

• The typical floor is about as efficient as the Rexray set has measured.
• It is a clean rectangle, 22.84 by 12.14 metres, with the lift core, staircase, both ducts and the servant toilet gathered at one end and two mirrored apartments filling the rest.
• Against the sanctioned built-up figure of 216.23 square metres for the floor, the two apartments carry 200.80 square metres of carpet between them — 92.9 per cent, second only to Kalpataru One in the portfolio and comfortably above SeaKrest.

• Nothing on the plate triggers a layout penalty.
• There is no butterfly circulation and no internal corridor; each apartment opens off its own foyer directly from the lobby.
• The envelope is a plain rectangle rather than an irregular shape forced by the site.
• The living-dining at 3.47 by 5.85 metres is properly sized for a three-bedroom home, and no free-standing column intrudes on it.
• Three bedrooms, three bathrooms, a servant toilet and a kitchen on the outer wall, laid out without waste.

• The other half of that sentence is that there is no deck, no balcony and no terrace anywhere in any apartment — only 0.45 metre weather ledges.
• The high efficiency and the absence of outdoor space are the same design decision seen from two sides, and on a 478 square metre plot with no setback on three boundaries there was little room for anything else.
• The only open air in the building is the shared pool on the terrace above the twenty-first floor.

• This tests clean, which is worth saying plainly because it usually does not.
• Each apartment's foyer — 1.94 by 1.83 metres — sits inside the apartment's own fire door, within the unit boundary and outside the hatched area that marks the lift lobby and staircase as common.
• It is carpet the buyer owns, not common area handed over for exclusive use, and it is not a restricted-common-area finding.

• The lift lobby itself is drawn as undivided common area serving both apartments on the floor, with no share attributed to either.
• On the nine floors that carry a single apartment it is simply unbilled use — the favourable configuration the Rexray set has seen before, rather than the pattern where several flats per floor each claim a carved-out lobby and invite municipal enforcement later.
• There is no private landing, no enclosed service zone marketed as part of the home, and no exclusive-use grant of any kind in the registered agreement beyond the two car parking spaces.

The registered agreement grants carpet area and the right to use two car parks, and nothing else. There is no separately stated balcony or deck area to price, because there is none.

• The arm's-length evidence is the developer's own sale book, filed with the regulator.
• Across 2024 and 2025 apartments of roughly a hundred square metres of carpet registered at between Rs.2.65 crore and Rs.3.80 crore — broadly Rs.24,500 to Rs.35,000 a square foot of carpet — and Rexray field confirms that band for this street.
• The price is where the market is.
• It is not a discount and it is not a premium.

• Two things sit underneath the headline rate.
• The first is that these are bare shells: the registered agreement's specification schedule reads, in full, that the unit consists of a bare flat without any internal finish save and except windows and the main door.
• No flooring, no kitchen, no sanitary fittings, no internal doors.
• A South Mumbai fit-out on a hundred square metre home is a substantial sum and none of it is in the rate, so no comparison against a finished project holds without adding it back.
• Maintenance is separately open-ended — the agreement leaves the figure to be intimated at possession.

• The second is that the only registered instrument in the file is a promoter-side transaction, at the very top of that range, with almost the entire consideration paid before the agreement was executed.
• It cannot anchor anything, and the leaf does not use it.
• The access explains a good deal of where the band sits: the approach is a small shared lane off a one-way street, and the coastal road is twenty minutes away at the easiest hour of the day.

• Twenty-four flats stand on 478 square metres.
• Seventeen of them are the apartments on sale; the balance reconciles exactly to the rehabilitation tenements owed to the occupants of the ground-plus-three cessed building this tower replaced, which the title report records as fully tenanted.
• So the disclosed unit list describes about seventy per cent of the households in the building.

• Of the 2,970 square metres of sanctioned floor area, rehabilitation takes 1,488 — 50.1 per cent.
• Rehabilitation and sale share the same structure rather than sitting in separate blocks, and they are segregated vertically: the ground floor and the first to fifth are commercial rehabilitation units, sharing those floor plates with car-stack bays, and the whole of the seventh is commercial too.
• Homes occupy the sixth and the eighth to twenty-first.
• One lobby, one pair of lifts and one staircase serve all of it.

• There is a question here the documents do not answer.
• The sanctioned area statement puts every square metre of residential floor area on the sale floors, and separately books 1,046.92 square metres of residential rehabilitation area.
• Those two statements reconcile only two ways: either rehabilitation households sit interleaved among the apartments on the sale floors, or the residential rehousing obligation is discharged somewhere off this plot — which would point back at the imported floor area and at a tenants' association named for a different building.
• Nothing in the file settles it, and the difference matters a great deal to what a buyer is moving into.

• The area statement also books a rehabilitation shortfall of 166.92 square metres against a balance sale area of half a square metre.
• The envelope was consumed to the last fraction with an obligation still outstanding on the face of the sanction, and how it was settled is not stated anywhere.

• Four properties abut this plot at ten to forty metres, with no setback on three of the four sides — the municipality wrote 'proposed with zero open space, needs to be reconciled' on the sanctioned drawing itself.
• The only relief is the 9.15 metre shared private lane on the north.

• Two of the four arcs face active construction for years to come.
• Beyond Girton School to the west, a thirty-three storey tower is due in 2027 and a second in 2030; both will discharge their construction traffic onto the same one-way street this building depends on.
• The corner building to the east is expected to redevelop.
• To the north and north-west the fabric is low-rise society stock with the same redevelopment economics that produced this tower.

• Two more things shape the daily experience.
• The access lane is shared with a school, so it carries a school's arrival and departure peaks at exactly the hours residents are leaving and returning.
• And six floors of the building itself are commercial, which brings visitor traffic through the same single lobby and the same two lifts as the homes.

• Rexray field measures twenty minutes at eleven in the morning on a weekday from the mouth of the private lane to the nearest coastal-road entry.
• Eleven o'clock is the kindest hour available and the peak-hour figure will be worse.
• Against a corpus in which sea-facing addresses measure in single minutes, this is poor, and it is the honest price of a Grant Road West address.

• The local geometry compounds it in a way a map does not show.
• The building's only vehicular access is a small lane off Naushir Bharucha Marg, shared with Girton School, and Naushir Bharucha Marg is one-way — so leaving and returning are different journeys and both run as a loop.
• Read that with the parking: the time from deciding to leave to being on a through road is the retrieval-machine cycle, plus the lane, plus the loop, and none of those three is under the society's control.

• The sanctioned typical plate puts the kitchen of each apartment hard against the outer wall at the core end of the floor, with a continuous 0.45 metre weather chajja drawn along that wall over the kitchen bay — and a chajja is drawn over an opening, so there is glazing beneath it.
• The north apartment's kitchen sits on the north face and the south apartment's on the south face.
• Both have a confirmed exterior air path.

• There is no light well doing the job, no internal duct standing in for a window, and no recirculation-only kitchen anywhere on the plate.
• This one seals as a pass off the drawing without needing a site visit.

• Two passenger lifts serve twenty-one floors, and a single dog-leg staircase runs beside them.
• The sanctioned plate draws exactly two cars at 2.13 by 2.10 metres off a lobby of 5.18 by 1.75, and the ground floor shows the matching pair of pits.
• For a building of this height that is a thin core, and it is the clearest weakness the drawings disclose.

• At the rating a building of this height and price would ordinarily carry — one to two metres per second — the modelled interval runs between fifty-six and a hundred seconds, which is the bottom grade on three of the four corners of that range.
• The useful part of the analysis is what it rules out.
• Run the same two lifts at twenty metres per second, faster than any lift in service anywhere in the world, and the interval still only reaches the second grade, because the round trip is dominated by roughly five stops at thirteen seconds of door opening and closing rather than by travel.
• No upgrade to the machinery fixes this.
• Three shafts would; there are two.

• Two things soften it and neither appears in the model: the residential population is small at seventeen apartments, and nine of the sixteen residential floors carry a single home.
• Two things sharpen it: the same two cars also serve six commercial floors with their own visitors, and there is only one staircase in the building.
• Because it is occupied and certified, the real interval can be timed rather than modelled — and that is the right way to settle it.

• The municipal approval sets out the whole water chain and the building has cleared every link of it: the hydraulic engineer's remarks before commencement, an all-dues clearance from the ward, a no-objection for the sewer line, storm-water drain remarks before the plinth certificate, and compliance with the hydraulic engineer's no-objection before occupation — with the printed note that no completion certificate is accepted and no water connection granted until those are satisfied.
• A full occupation certificate has issued, so the chain closed.

• What no document in the file states is how much water the building actually gets.
• There is no connection count, no daily supply figure and no declaration either way about tankers.
• What is on the drawing is the storage: a thirteen thousand litre domestic tank and a twelve thousand litre flushing tank at ground, twenty thousand litres of domestic storage overhead, and firefighting tanks of forty-six thousand and a hundred and three thousand litres.
• The compliance question is answered and the running question is not — and on an occupied building it is answerable in one conversation with the society.

• This is the most structurally distinctive thing about the building.
• There is no vehicular ramp at any level.
• A fully automated stack runs from a pit about three metres below the plinth up through the fifth floor, cars held on shuttling pallets three deep on each side of a central shaft, entered from a 6.30 metre driveway off the shared lane, down a one-in-eight slope and onto a turntable.
• No owner ever drives to their own bay.

• On a 478 square metre plot with no setback there was no other way to put forty-eight cars on the site, and the same stack is what lifts the first home to twenty-two metres and gives the building its light.
• It is also not the worst arrangement of its kind: the stack sits below a service floor and no car ever reaches a residential floor, which is a materially better position than the buildings in the Rexray set that lift cars onto habitable levels.

• The provision is genuinely good.
• Two bays for each three-bedroom home meets the Mumbai norm exactly, forty-eight bays are provided against thirty-nine required, and visitor parking is booked in the sanctioned statement.
• The morning queue is modest — for seventeen households on one machine the wait models at under five minutes even on pessimistic assumptions.

• What a buyer trades for it is control and resilience.
• There is one retrieval machine, confirmed on site, and no drivable alternative anywhere in the building — so a single mechanical failure takes out the parking for every apartment at once, and what matters is the service contract and the response time rather than the average wait.
• No document permits a private charger at a bay, and on a pallet system a private charger is close to impossible by design, so electric-vehicle ownership here depends on whatever common provision exists, reached through the same single machine.

Rexray's database will, over time, be enriched with the attention to detail and quality ethos of each builder. For now, below is the checklist you should verify with the builder before you decide.

• The building is a residential and commercial one, and the occupation certificate says so in its first line.
• The sanctioned area statement splits proposed floor area into commercial and residential columns, and the commercial column carries the ground floor, the first to fifth and the whole of the seventh — 584.65 square metres in total, with the share of staircase, lift and lobby for those floors booked against commercial too.
• Several of those units sit on floor plates they share with car-stack bays reachable only by machine.

• So seventeen households share one entrance lobby, one pair of lifts and one staircase with roughly seven shops or offices, and the commercial visitors use the same core.
• The sale mix itself is modest and coherent — one two-bedroom home on the sixth, fourteen three-bedroom homes, and two larger apartments at the top, with no combined units and no duplexes.
• This is not a building with a wide spread of household types among the buyers.

What the commercial units actually trade as, what hours they keep and how they are serviced is not in any document, and it is the single thing most worth an hour on site.