Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a flat allotted to the petitioner under a slum rehabilitation scheme. The petitioner's name had been included in Annexure II as an eligible person in 1994 and revised in 2002. In 2008, Flat No. 408 was allotted to her. However, respondent No. 4, claiming to be the grandson of the original occupant, alleged fraudulent inclusion and unauthorized transfer. On inspection, it was found that respondent No. 3 was residing in the flat, leading to an eviction order on 30 July 2015 under Section 3E(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed on 18 June 2016, prompting this writ petition. The petitioner argued that no registered document of sale, gift, exchange or lease existed, and the society had confirmed no sale. She contended that the inquiry was improper and that 'or otherwise' required a formal transfer. The court, however, examined Section 3E and observed that the phrase 'or otherwise' is not limited to the specific modes enumerated; it encompasses any arrangement by which the allottee parts with possession and control. The court noted that the legislative intent was to prevent parting with the tenement for the initial five years, and the absence of a registered instrument did not preclude a finding of transfer. The authorities' finding of unauthorized occupation and contravention of Section 3E was held to be justified, and no legal error was found in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the eviction order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Restriction on Transfer of Tenement - Meaning of 'or otherwise' in Section 3E(1) - Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, Section 3E - The petitioner's flat allotted under a slum rehabilitation scheme was found occupied by a third party, and eviction proceedings were initiated under Section 3E(2). The petitioner contended that no registered transfer deed existed, thus no transfer under Section 3E. The court held that the expression 'or otherwise' in Section 3E(1) is wide enough to cover any mode of transfer not specifically mentioned, including permitting a third party to occupy the premises without a registered instrument. Held that parting with possession amounts to transfer, and the eviction order was justified (Paras 12-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the authorities were justified in holding that the petitioner had transferred the rehabilitation tenement in contravention of Section 3E of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, and whether the impugned orders suffer from any legal error.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed; the impugned order dated 18 June 2016 was upheld, and the eviction order under Section 3E(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 was maintained.
Law Points
- Section 3E of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement
- Clearance and Redevelopment) Act
- 1971 prohibits transfer of tenement by sale
- gift
- exchange
- lease or otherwise for five years
- 'or otherwise' includes any arrangement by which possession and control are parted with to a third party
- no registered instrument is necessary to constitute transfer
- eviction under Section 3E(2) valid for contravention
- object of Act prevents original allottee from parting with tenement within prohibited period
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 225
Writ Petition No. 9247 of 2016
Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Mr. Hitesh Gupta, Smt. S.D. Chipade, Ms. Tanaya Goswami, Mr. Habibur Rehman Ansari, Mr. Vinod P. Sangvikar, Mr. Shubham Sonawale, Ms. Saima S. Shaikh, Ms. Sanika R. Said
The State of Maharashtra through the Additional Collector (ENC & R), The Deputy Collector (SRA), Hiteshi Dinesh Tank, Sushant Gajanan Ruke
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging validity of order passed by Additional Collector in appeal under Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 upholding eviction for unauthorized transfer of tenement.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 18 June 2016 passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.405 of 2015 and consequential reliefs.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's flat was ordered to be vacated under Section 3E(2) for alleged transfer to a third party, and appeal was dismissed.
Previous Decisions
On 30 July 2015, respondent No.2 passed eviction order in Application No.12 of 2015; on 18 June 2016, respondent No.1 rejected Appeal No.407 of 2015.
Issues
Whether the authorities were justified in holding that the petitioner had transferred the rehabilitation tenement in contravention of Section 3E of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, and whether the impugned orders suffered from any legal error.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner submitted that no registered document of sale, gift, exchange, or lease was produced, and the Society confirmed no sale.
Petitioner argued that the inquiry was not proper and the Appellate Authority failed to consider the investigation report and her defences.
Petitioner contended that Section 3E was wrongly applied as there was no formal transfer by any recognized mode.
Respondent No.4 argued that the petitioner obtained allotment fraudulently and that inspection revealed third-party occupation, justifying eviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The expression 'or otherwise' in Section 3E(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 is not limited to the specific modes of sale, gift, exchange, or lease but includes any arrangement by which the allottee parts with possession and control of the tenement. Eviction under Section 3E(2) may be ordered even in the absence of a registered instrument.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 3E does not stop only with the words 'sale, gift, exchange, lease'. The Legislature has further used the expression 'or otherwise'. Therefore, while deciding the issue, the meaning and effect of these additional words is also required to be understood.
Procedural History
On 24 March 1971, Shivram Ruke died. In 1976, photopass issued to Vithabai Shivram Ruke. On 16 September 1981, Vithabai Shivram Ruke died. In 1994, petitioner's name shown at Serial No. 34 in Annexure II. On 30 May 2000, Gajanan Shivram Ruke died. On 25 September 2002, revised Annexure II prepared with petitioner at Serial No. 35. In 2008, Flat No. 408 allotted to petitioner. On 6 July 2008, respondent No. 4 filed RTI application. On 10 September 2009, authority replied no record available. On 10 September 2009, petitioner executed Power of Attorney in favour of Nitin Patel, giving possession. On 23 December 2009, Deputy Collector sent letter asking for documents, returned 'LEFT NOT KNOWN'. On 3 February 2015, respondent No. 3 started staying as tenant. On 11 May 2015, complaints made by Sunita Gajanan Ruke and respondent No. 4. On 30 July 2015, inspection report submitted; respondent No. 2 passed eviction order in Application No. 12 of 2015. Thereafter, Nitin Patel filed Appeal No. 407 of 2015. On 18 June 2016, respondent No. 1 rejected appeal. On 3 August 2016, respondent No. 2 visited flat and issued letter for vacant possession. On 4 August 2016, present writ petition filed.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971: 3E
