Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sugrabai Gulam Abas Tambawala, an 80-year-old housewife, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a summary eviction order dated 20 May 2019 issued by the Executive Engineer of the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (respondent no.2). The petitioner resided in Room Nos.1 and 1K on the second floor of Potia Building, Bhendi Bazar, Mumbai. The Board had also issued a notice dated 8 March 2019 and an order dated 1 March 2019 directing her to vacate the premises. The petitioner contended that she was a lawful tenant and that the eviction was sought without providing alternate accommodation as required under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976 (MHADA Act). The respondents, including the Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust (respondent no.3), argued that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant and that the eviction was necessary for redevelopment. The court examined the provisions of Section 95A, which mandates that before evicting a tenant, the Board must ensure provision of alternate accommodation. The court found that the Board had not provided any permanent alternate accommodation to the petitioner, and the eviction order was therefore in violation of the statutory requirement. The court also noted that the petitioner had been in possession for decades and had paid rent, and the Board failed to prove that she was an unauthorised occupant. The court quashed the impugned notices and orders, directing the Board to provide alternate accommodation to the petitioner before eviction. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976 - Section 95A - Summary Eviction - Alternate Accommodation - The Board issued a summary eviction notice to the petitioner, an 80-year-old tenant, without providing permanent alternate accommodation. The Court held that Section 95A mandates that before evicting a tenant, the Board must ensure provision of alternate accommodation. The eviction order was quashed as it violated the statutory requirement. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - The Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against orders of the MHADA Board, as the Board is a statutory authority performing public functions. The petitioner's challenge to the eviction order was entertained on merits. (Paras 1-5) C) Property Law - Unauthorised Occupation - Burden of Proof - The Board alleged that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant, but the Court noted that the petitioner had been in possession for decades and had paid rent. The burden to prove unauthorised occupation lies on the Board, which was not discharged. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the summary eviction order passed by the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board against the petitioner, an 80-year-old tenant, without providing alternate accommodation as mandated under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976, is legal and valid.
Final Decision
The court quashed the impugned notice/order of summary eviction dated 20 May 2019, notice/order dated 8 March 2019, and order dated 1 March 2019. The court directed the respondents to provide alternate accommodation to the petitioner before eviction. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Summary eviction under MHADA Act requires strict compliance with Section 95A
- right to alternate accommodation
- natural justice
- maintainability of writ petition against MHADA orders
- interpretation of 'unauthorised occupation'
