Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, trustees of Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust, a public charitable trust, filed a writ petition seeking eviction of respondent No. 3, a tenant, from a dilapidated building located at CS No. 3573, Gujar Street, Bhendi Bazaar, Mumbai. The building formed part of a Cluster Development Project under Regulation 33(9) of the Development Control Regulations. Out of 54 tenants, 53 had already vacated and accepted transit accommodation, while respondent No. 3 refused to vacate the ground floor portion she occupied. The building was in a dangerous condition, and most of it had been demolished. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) issued a notice on 29 March 2017 directing her to vacate, but she did not comply. The petitioners and MHADA argued that her continued occupation posed a safety risk and obstructed the redevelopment project. Respondent No. 3 relied on pending litigation in Small Causes Court and raised issues regarding the property belonging to Wakf Board, and contended that summary eviction proceedings under Section 95A of the MHADA Act should be followed instead of writ jurisdiction. The court held that the situation required urgent action under Section 77 of the MHADA Act, which empowers MHADA to take all immediate action necessary for development. It noted that all other tenants had vacated on similar terms, and the project could not be obstructed indefinitely. Considering the safety hazards and public interest, the court exercised its writ jurisdiction to direct respondent No. 3 to vacate within two weeks, failing which MHADA was permitted to evict her with police assistance if required. The court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of other pending matters. The petition was allowed, and an oral prayer for stay was rejected.
Headnote
A) Tenancy and Redevelopment - Eviction from Dilapidated Building - Section 77 of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 - Cluster Development under DCR 33(9) - Where a tenant occupies a portion of a dilapidated building that has been partially demolished after 53 other tenants vacated pursuant to redevelopment, and refuses to vacate despite notice from MHADA, the High Court can direct MHADA to take immediate eviction steps under Section 77, and grant police assistance for eviction, rejecting reliance on Section 95A as a bar (Paras 5-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant should be evicted from dilapidated building for cluster development project when all other tenants have vacated, and whether police assistance is needed
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Respondent No.3 directed to vacate within two weeks. MHADA permitted to evict, if necessary with police assistance. Oral prayer for stay rejected.
Law Points
- Court can direct MHADA to take eviction steps under Section 77 of MHADA Act
- Police protection can be ordered for eviction from dilapidated buildings
- Writ jurisdiction can be invoked for urgent public interest matters
- Section 95A of MHADA Act not a bar to writ relief
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 121
Writ Petition (L) No. 1726 of 2017
Anoop V. Mohta, Anuja Prabhudessai
For Petitioners: Virag Tuljapurkar with Nikhil Sakhardande, Dhawal Mehta, Nanki Grewal, Yogini Borade, Khan Javed Akhtar i/b. M/s. Wadia Ghandy and Co.; For Respondent Nos.1 and 2: P.G. Lad with Ms Sayli; For Respondent No.3: Bhavesh Parmar i/b. Devmani Shukla
Shabbir bhai Morbiwala and 15 others (as trustees of Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust)
1. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), 2. Maharashtra Building Repair and Reconstruction Board, 3. Sugra Begum
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking eviction of a tenant from a dilapidated building for a cluster development project.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (trustees) sought direction to MHADA to evict the tenant and provide police assistance if needed.
Filing Reason
The tenant refused to vacate despite notices and the building being dangerous.
Previous Decisions
No prior court decisions mentioned, except notice from MHADA dated 29 March 2017 and pending litigations in Small Causes Court and issues regarding Wakf Board which were not adjudicated here.
Issues
Whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked to direct eviction of tenant from dilapidated building when tenant refuses to vacate despite notice and all other tenants have vacated.
Whether police assistance can be ordered for eviction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the tenant's refusal to vacate is hindering the cluster development project, poses safety hazard, and that all other tenants have accepted transit accommodation; MHADA issued notice but failed to evict.
Respondent No.3 argued that Section 95A of MHADA Act provides summary eviction proceedings and that should be followed, raised issues of Wakf property and pending litigation in Small Causes Court.
MHADA supported eviction, citing the dilapidated condition and public safety.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 77 of MHADA Act, MHADA has the power to take immediate action for development projects. In urgent matters of dilapidated buildings obstructing cluster development, writ jurisdiction can be exercised to direct eviction even without resorting to Section 95A proceedings. Police assistance can be ordered to ensure eviction for public safety and project completion.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 77 of MHADA Act provides and gives power to MHADA /the concerned Authority, to take all immediate action, as is necessary for the development of the project.
we are inclined to permit Respondent Nos.1 and 2 MHADA to take all necessary steps for eviction of Respondent No.3, by taking police assistance /protection, if required
This Court has already passed such orders in many similar matters in a situation where tenants/occupants of dilapidated building failed to evict the premises inspite of notice and warning.
Procedural History
Writ Petition filed before High Court. Notice issued, respondents appeared. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. No lower court proceedings mentioned.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976: 77, 95A
- Development Control Regulations: Regulation 33(9)
