Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a teacher and tenant, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the eviction decree passed against her on the ground of arrears of rent. The respondent was the landlord of the premises in Thane. In her written statement before the trial court, the petitioner specifically raised a defense that the suit house was situated in a slum area and therefore she was entitled to protection from eviction under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The trial court, however, after considering this contention, held that there was nothing on record to show that the suit house fell within a slum area and consequently refused to extend the statutory protection. The appellate court confirmed this view. The petitioner had also moved an application (Exhibit 68) to bring additional material on record, including the relevant government notification, but this was rejected by the courts below. Before the High Court, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the slum area protection went to the root of the matter and that the failure to consider the same vitiated the eviction decree. The High Court accepted this submission, observing that if a case was made out that the premises fell within the ambit of a notification issued under the Slum Act, eviction could not be ordered. The court further noted that a Government Gazette notification is a public document and its consideration does not strictly require additional evidence procedures. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to place such notification on record. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate order dated 16 August 1995 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Thane, and remanded the matter to the appellate court with a direction to reconsider the appeal solely on the issue of the slum area protection after giving full opportunity to both parties. The appellate court was directed to decide the appeal within four months. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Landlord and Tenant Law - Eviction - Slum Area Protection - Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, Section 22 - The tenant claimed protection from eviction on the ground that the suit premises were located in a notified slum area - The trial and appellate courts rejected the claim due to lack of evidence of notification - Held, the slum area protection goes to the root of the matter, and if a government notification covers the premises, eviction cannot be ordered; thus, an opportunity should be given to place the gazette notification on record, and the matter remitted to the appellate court to consider the issue afresh within four months (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in not considering the protection available to the tenant under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, and whether the matter should be remanded for such consideration.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed; impugned judgment and order dated 16th August 1995 by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Thane set aside; matter remanded to Appellate Court to reconsider only the slum area protection issue; appeal to be decided within 4 months; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Protection under Section 22 of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement
- Clearance and Redevelopment) Act
- 1971 bars eviction if premises fall within notified slum area
- Government Gazette notification is conclusive evidence and must be considered
- slum area protection goes to the root of eviction proceedings
