Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by occupants of Sardharia Building in Bhendi Bazar, Mumbai, challenging actions of the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB) and the Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust (SBUT). The building is part of a larger redevelopment project approved under DCR 33(9). In Writ Petition (L) No.1662 of 2015, the petitioners challenged notices dated 16th May, 2015 and 18th May, 2015 issued under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHAD Act), directing them to vacate their premises. In Writ Petition (L) No.328 of 2015, the petitioners challenged an order dated 9th August, 2012 passed by MBRRB in favour of SBUT, appointing it as the developer for the redevelopment. The petitioners, who are certified tenants/occupants, argued that the notices were issued without giving them a hearing and that the order appointing SBUT was arbitrary. The court examined the provisions of Section 95A of the MHAD Act and the facts of the case. It noted that the building was in a dilapidated condition and that the redevelopment was necessary for the safety of the occupants. The court held that Section 95A does not require a prior hearing before issuance of a notice to vacate, as it is an emergency provision. However, the petitioners were given an opportunity to make representations, which were considered. Regarding the order appointing SBUT, the court found that it was passed after following due procedure and in accordance with law. The court dismissed both petitions, upholding the validity of the notices and the order. The court also directed that the petitioners be given alternative accommodation as per the rehabilitation scheme.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 - Section 95A - Notice to Vacate - Validity - Petitioners challenged notices issued under Section 95A of MHAD Act for vacating premises in a building part of Bhendi Bazar redevelopment project - Court held that the notices were validly issued as the building was in a dilapidated condition and the redevelopment was approved under DCR 33(9) - No requirement of individual hearing before issuance of notice under Section 95A as the provision is for urgent removal of occupants in the interest of safety (Paras 1-10). B) Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 - Section 95A - Order appointing developer - Challenge to order dated 9th August, 2012 - Petitioners challenged the order of MBRRB appointing Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust (SBUT) as developer for redevelopment - Court held that the order was passed after following due procedure and in accordance with law - No merit in the challenge (Paras 2-15). C) Natural Justice - Right to Hearing - Requirement before issuance of notice under Section 95A - Petitioners contended that they were not heard before the notices were issued - Court held that Section 95A does not mandate a prior hearing as it is an emergency provision for safety of occupants - However, the petitioners were given an opportunity to make representations which were considered (Paras 8-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notices issued under Section 95A of the MHAD Act and the order dated 9th August, 2012 passed by MBRRB in favour of SBUT are valid and whether the petitioners are entitled to a hearing before the issuance of such notices.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The notices dated 16th May, 2015 and 18th May, 2015 under Section 95A of the MHAD Act and the order dated 9th August, 2012 are upheld. The petitioners are directed to vacate the premises and shall be provided alternative accommodation as per the rehabilitation scheme.
Law Points
- Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act
- 1976
- DCR 33(9)
- Natural Justice
- Right to Hearing
- Redevelopment of Cessed Buildings
