Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved municipal staff quarters at Vikhroli Parksite Municipal Colony and other locations in Mumbai, allotted by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to its employees on a leave and licence basis. The employees had agreed to vacate upon retirement, superannuation, or discharge from service. After retirement, the ex-employees and their heirs continued to occupy the premises, claiming that the Corporation had resolved to convert the tenements into ownership basis. Notices under Section 105B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 were issued in 2006-2007 demanding vacation. The occupants contended that a scheme for permanent housing accommodation was introduced in 1992 and relied on a circular dated 1 September 1989. The Corporation withheld retirement benefits and initiated summary eviction proceedings. Writ petitions filed earlier were dismissed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on 6 January 2017, which held that employees could not retain the structures endlessly and granted three months to vacate, with release of withheld retirement benefits upon vacation. The Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petitions against that order on 1 May 2017. Subsequently, the State Government directed the Corporation to consider ownership conversion, but the Corporation issued show cause notices under Section 105B and proceeded with enquiry. On 29 September 2021, the Enquiry Officer ordered eviction and granted one month to vacate. Petitioners filed appeals under Section 105F before the City Civil Court, which dismissed the appeals on 1 February 2024 and rejected their application for additional evidence. The writ petitions before the High Court challenged those appellate orders. Petitioners argued that resolutions passed in 1985, 1989, and 1991 converted the premises to ownership basis, that the reference under Section 64 to cancel the 1989 resolution remained pending, and that the State Government's 2017 direction supported their claim. They relied on orders in another group of petitions concerning the Mithanagar site. The excerpt of the judgment ends before the court's analysis and final decision, so the operative order and ratio are not stated in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Summary Eviction - Section 105B, The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Municipal Corporation initiated summary eviction proceedings against retired employees and their heirs who failed to vacate staff quarters allotted on leave and licence basis despite retirement; Enquiry Officer passed eviction orders granting one month to vacate (Paras 2(a)-2(i)).
B) Municipal Law - Appeal Against Eviction - Section 105F, The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Petitioners filed statutory appeals before City Civil Court against eviction orders; appeals were dismissed and application for leading additional evidence was rejected; writ petitions challenged appellate decisions (Paras 1, 2(j)-2(k)).
C) Municipal Law - Conversion of Tenure - Sections 64, 92, The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Petitioners claimed resolutions passed in 1985, 1989, and 1991 converted premises from leave and licence to ownership basis; reference under Section 64 to cancel 1989 resolution remained pending and unapproved; State Government directed consideration of ownership conversion in 2017 (Paras 3-4).
D) Precedent - Binding Effect of Earlier Division Bench Judgment - More Jeewan Yashwant and others v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and another, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 10101 - Earlier Division Bench dismissed similar claims and directed vacation within three months, confirmed by Supreme Court; subsequent proceedings raised question of res judicata and stare decisis (Paras 2(d)-2(f), 2(k)).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to resist eviction based on alleged conversion of municipal staff quarters from leave and licence to ownership basis; whether the eviction orders under Section 105B and appellate orders under Section 105F are valid; whether additional evidence should be permitted.
Law Points
- Summary eviction under Section 105B of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- 1888
- statutory appeal under Section 105F
- ownership conversion of municipal staff quarters
- leave and licence terms
- binding effect of earlier Division Bench judgment
- additional evidence in appeal.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (09) 161
Writ Petition No. 6343 of 2024 along with Writ Petition Nos. 6378 of 2024, 6410 of 2024, 6412 of 2024, 6347 of 2024, and 6436 of 2024
Rajendra Pai, Aloukik Pai, Akshay Pai, Siddhi Bhosale, Saharsh Sakhare, Omkar Kalundrekar, Rishabh Shanbhag, Sanika Gawade, Bina R. Pai, Som Sinha, Divya V., Rutuja Thaker, Rutuja Bhise, Santosh Mali
Shri Satish Mahadeo Rupwate, Smt. Jayashree Rajaram Rasam, Asha Sudhakar Ghodke, Shri Girish Umesh Sodiye, Smt. Parveen Usman Shaikh, Yeshwant A. Gaonkar
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (through the Municipal Commissioner), Mr. Kisan Govind Dharade, Mr. J. K. Kadam
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging City Civil Court appellate orders in eviction proceedings under Sections 105F and 105B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of eviction orders and appellate dismissals, and claimed right to continue occupation based on alleged ownership conversion scheme.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were aggrieved by the dismissal of their statutory appeals and rejection of additional evidence application, leading to summary eviction orders.
Previous Decisions
Division Bench of Bombay High Court in More Jeewan Yashwant and others v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and another (2017 SCC OnLine Bom 10101) dismissed earlier writ petitions; Special Leave Petitions dismissed by Supreme Court on 1 May 2017; Enquiry Officer passed eviction orders on 29 September 2021; City Civil Court dismissed appeals on 1 February 2024.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are entitled to resist eviction on the ground of alleged conversion of premises to ownership basis under resolutions passed by the Municipal Corporation.
Whether the eviction proceedings under Section 105B and subsequent appellate orders under Section 105F are valid and proper.
Whether the petitioners should be allowed to lead additional evidence to prove their claim of ownership conversion.
Whether the earlier Division Bench judgment operates as res judicata or binding precedent against the petitioners.
Submissions/Arguments
The structures were constructed in 1964 under Budget "B" for housing project affected persons.
The Corporation passed resolutions in 1985, 1989, and 1991 to convert premises to ownership basis.
The State Government on 3 May 2017 directed the Corporation to consider conversion, but the Corporation instead initiated eviction.
The reference under Section 64 to cancel the 1989 resolution remained pending and unapproved.
The petitioners relied on orders in Vivek Gawde and others pertaining to Mithanagar site to stay enquiry proceedings.
Judgment Excerpts
These petitions are filed to challenge the judgment and order passed by the City Civil Court in the respective appeals filed by these petitioners under Section 105F of The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (“MMC Act”).
The Division Bench of this court further held that the petitioners cannot retain the structures endlessly, and if the premises are not handed over within the time granted, the corporation shall take necessary action for evicting the respective occupants.
On 3 rd May 2017, the State Government directed the corporation to explore the possibility of a scheme for the conversion of the structures into an ownership basis.
Procedural History
Employees were allotted municipal staff quarters on leave and licence basis and failed to vacate after retirement. Notices under Section 105B were issued in 2006-2007. Corporation issued circular withholding retirement benefits on 7 October 2010. Writ petitions filed between 2008 and 2013 were dismissed by Division Bench on 6 January 2017 (More Jeewan Yashwant and others). Special Leave Petitions dismissed by Supreme Court on 1 May 2017. State Government directed Corporation to consider ownership conversion on 3 May 2017. Corporation issued show cause notices under Section 105B on 5 June 2017. Enquiry Officer passed eviction orders on 29 September 2021. Petitioners filed appeals under Section 105F in November 2021. City Civil Court dismissed appeals on 1 February 2024 and rejected additional evidence application. Writ petitions filed in 2024; reserved on 4 September 2025 and pronounced on 16 September 2025.
Acts & Sections
- The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: 105B, 105F, 105H, 64, 92
