South and central Mumbai stopped having vacant land decades ago; what it has is old buildings wearing valuable coordinates. The Regulation 33 family of DCPR 2034 is the machinery that converts one into the other, and each clause serves a different situation: 33(7) for the cess-paying pre-1969 stock, 33(5) for MHADA's world, 33(9) for whole precincts. Developers who can read these schemes underwrite projects competitors cannot see; buyers meet them wearing redevelopment project labels. The decoder follows.
Key takeaways
- 33(7): cessed buildings (pre-30 September 1969) redevelop at total FSI 3.00 of gross plot, or rehab FSI plus 50 percent incentive, whichever is more; composite schemes of 2 to 5 plots earn rehab plus 60 percent.
- 33(5): the MHADA-linked track for its colonies and role in cessed renewal, with its own sharing structures.
- 33(9): cluster redevelopment, precinct-scale amalgamation with the family's richest incentives and heaviest complexity.
- The trade in every scheme is identical: rehouse occupiers free, earn incentive FSI to sell, and the occupier consent and rehab obligations are the real project.
The economics all three schemes share
Every Regulation 33 scheme is the same bargain in different sizes: the city wants unsafe old stock replaced and its occupiers rehoused without displacement; the developer wants sellable area in locations where none is otherwise available. The regulation prices the swap in FSI: build the rehab component free for existing occupiers, receive incentive FSI to sell. The base-FSI arithmetic of ordinary plots does not apply; these schemes run their own entitlement math, which is why redevelopment specialists and greenfield developers are practically different professions.
An analogy: it is a barter economy operating inside a cash economy. Ordinary development buys area with money, premiums, TDR; Regulation 33 buys area with obligations, rehab flats, corpus, rent during construction. Developers fluent in pricing obligations outperform those who only price money, because obligation-pricing is where every 33-scheme succeeds or dies.
The decoder
| Scheme | The stock it targets | The headline entitlement | The catch that decides feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| 33(7) | Cessed buildings, pre-30/9/1969, landlord or occupier societies | Total FSI 3.00 of gross plot, or rehab FSI + 50% incentive, whichever more | Occupier consent, rehab-area norms per occupier, and tiny plots that trap the entitlement |
| 33(7) composite | 2 to 5 amalgamated cessed plots | FSI 3.00 or rehab + 60% incentive | Multi-landlord assembly: every additional plot multiplies the consent problem |
| 33(5) | MHADA colonies and MHADA's cessed-renewal role | Scheme-specific incentives and sharing with MHADA | The authority is a counterparty with its own housing-stock objectives |
| 33(9) | Clusters and precincts of old buildings | The family's highest FSI and incentives, at precinct scale | Years of assembly, occupier politics at scale, and approval complexity to match |
What the island city actually registers
The schemes are famous; the pipeline they produce is smaller than the conversation around them suggests. Mumbai City district, the island city where effectively all the cessed stock sits, carries 780 published projects on MahaRERA against 6,772 in Mumbai Suburban. That is one registered project in the island city for every nine in the suburbs, in the half of the city that generates most of the redevelopment coverage.
The trend is the more useful half, and it points up sharply.
Source: ReraGenie analysis of 55,885 published MahaRERA projects, as updated on 16 September 2026. The 2026 bar annualises 85 registrations recorded to 16 September. 2017 is excluded because the register opened that year and 302 existing island-city projects registered at once.
Registrations in the island city have gone from 29 in 2020 to an annualised 120 this year, and 2026 is on course to be the busiest since the register opened. Whatever else is true of Regulation 33, promoters are committing to it at a rate they were not four years ago.
And they are committing for longer. A promoter files a proposed completion date at registration, so the register holds each project's own declared build duration before a single extension is sought. The median in Mumbai City is 55.7 months, against 47.2 months in Mumbai Suburban and 45.3 across Maharashtra. An island-city scheme declares nearly five years at the outset, about ten months longer than the state median, and that is the optimistic number: it is the promoter's own estimate on the day they signed up to it.
That figure belongs in the pro forma rather than in the brochure. Transit rent, corpus and the rehab obligation all run for the declared period at minimum, and the underwriting question is what they cost for the period after it.
Reading a 33-scheme as an underwriter
- Count the rehab denominator first. Existing occupiers times the rehab entitlement per occupier is the free build; the incentive is what remains. Schemes die when the occupier census grows after the pro forma froze.
- Price the obligations like debt. Transit rent for every occupier through construction, corpus payments, rehab specifications: fixed outflows that behave like interest, and like interest, they compound with every quarter of delay.
- Verify the cess status and cut-off dates. Pre-1969 classification and the building's cess record are the scheme's entry ticket; assumptions here are unwritable.
- Model the consent path, not just the count. Assembly is sequential politics: the last landlord of a composite scheme knows their signature's price.
- Check the register for the neighbourhood's history. Stalled 33-schemes cluster geographically, and the filings show which precincts have consumed developers before you.
- Underwrite the declared duration, then the overrun on top of it. The island city's median declared build is 55.7 months. One in four Mumbai City registrations currently reads Lapsed, against 21.6 percent in the suburbs, so the tail beyond the declared period is where the obligation ledger does its damage.
- Expect the society across the table to have priced you too. Occupier groups increasingly run the same arithmetic in reverse, and self-redevelopment is the alternative your consent negotiation is being measured against, whether or not it is ever taken up.
- Write the four lines down before the bid. Entitlement, rehab burden, obligations against stressed time and realisations from the filed market: the feasibility that decides a bid, where the median scheme turns out to owe 48 percent of its units to the people already living there.
For buyers entering these projects: the incentive component you are buying exists because occupiers upstream must be rehoused first, so the rehab building's progress is your flat's leading indicator. A 33-scheme whose sale tower rises while its rehab component lags is running on borrowed consent, and the filings show the split. The redevelopment purchase checklist applies double here.
Anita Rao's firm (illustrative, as ever) passed on a glamorous single-plot 33(7) at FSI 3.00 and took the unglamorous composite next door: two extra landlords cost a year of assembly, but rehab plus 60 percent on the amalgamated plot, with a cleaner occupier census, out-earned the trophy by the width of its own incentive tier. The schemes reward census accuracy and obligation pricing, not postcode romance.
What the register can and cannot tell you here
It cannot read the scheme. Nothing in a MahaRERA filing says "33(7)" or separates a rehab tower from a sale tower, because the register records a project rather than the regulation that entitled it. Anyone offering you a filtered list of cessed redevelopments is inferring it, and you should ask how.
What it does carry is everything that decides whether a scheme finishes: the registration and its status, the declared completion date and every extension sought against it, construction progress building by building, the disclosed litigation, and the promoter's record across every other project they have registered in the state. For a precinct study that is the raw material, and the district page for Mumbai City on ReraGenie carries the whole island-city set free, with possession timelines by promised year.
The Rs 2,999 project analysis takes one registration and joins it to that corpus: the promoter's concurrent commitments, the micro-market's absorption cross-section, the certifier footprint and the district's own slip distribution. On a scheme whose obligations run for five declared years, the question that decides your return is not the FSI tier, it is how many other rehab buildings the same promoter is carrying at the same time.
The one-line summary
Three schemes, one bargain: rehouse the past free, sell the incentive, and let the occupier census, the obligation ledger and the precinct's filing history, not the FSI headline, decide which 33 deserves your next five years.
Methodology and sources
- Regulation 33(7), 33(5) and 33(9) entitlements, the pre-30 September 1969 cess cut-off and the composite-scheme incentive tiers: Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 for Greater Mumbai, Regulation 33 and its annexures.
- Island-city and suburban project counts, registrations by year, status distribution and declared build durations: ReraGenie analysis of 55,885 published MahaRERA projects, as updated on 16 September 2026. Declared build duration is the interval between a project's filed registration date and its filed proposed completion date, medians taken over 780 Mumbai City, 6,769 Mumbai Suburban and 55,816 statewide projects filing both dates.
- 2026 registration figures are annualised from records to 16 September and labelled wherever they appear.
- MahaRERA files no scheme classification, so no figure here identifies a project as a Regulation 33 redevelopment. The district counts describe all registered projects in the island city.
Evaluating a micro-market or a land parcel?
The ReraGenie project analysis reads the filings around your parcel: supply, absorption and promoter records. Rs 2,999 per project; the area market report is a flat Rs 2,999 per pincode.
See the project analysis