1. Eviction proceedings against unauthorized occupants of public premises under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 — Challenge to the jurisdiction and procedure of the Inquiry Officer. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1194
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai And Others – Appellants
Versus
Vivek V. Gawde Etc. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 [Arising Out Of SLP (Civil) Nos. 19602-19619 of 2022]
Decided On : 13-12-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Mr. Manoj Wad, Adv. Ms. Akriti Arya, Adv. Ms. Swati Arya, Adv. M/S. J.S. Wad And Co, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajendra Pai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aloukik Pai, Adv. Mr. Akshay Pai, Adv. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR Mrs. Sangeeta S Pahune Patil, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Mr. Manoj Wad, Adv. Ms. Akriti Arya, Adv. Ms. Swati Arya, Adv. M/S. J.S. Wad And Co, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajendra Pai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aloukik Pai, Adv. Mr. Akshay Pai, Adv. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR Mrs. Sangeeta S Pahune Patil, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by framing points for determination in eviction proceedings, which should be independently assessed by the Inquiry Officer based on evidence.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ jurisdiction - High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by framing points for determination in eviction proceedings under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - The Inquiry Officer must independently determine issues based on evidence led. (Paras 35 and 36)
(B) Jurisdiction - The High Court cannot interfere with the decisions of civil courts under Article 226; such orders are only amenable to Article 227. (Paras 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the High Court's order framing points for determination in eviction proceedings against unauthorized occupants, arguing that the Inquiry Officer should independently assess the situation without judicial interference.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's interference was unwarranted, and the Inquiry Officer must proceed with the inquiry based on evidence and principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether the High Court could frame points for determination in summary eviction proceedings and the maintainability of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by framing issues for the Inquiry Officer, which is contrary to the statutory framework of the Act.
Result: Civil appeals allowed; the High Court's order set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court exceeded jurisdiction by framing points for determination in summary proceedings and whether institutional bias or lack of regulations vitiated the eviction process. (Para 3 , 7 , 9 )
3. The High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 by substituting its wisdom for the statutory authority and framing issues in a summary proceeding. (Para 22 , 35 )
4. Judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to Article 226; supervisory power under Article 227 cannot be exercised as an appeal in disguise. (Para 14 , 16 )
5. Impugned order set aside — Eviction proceedings to continue independently by the Inquiry Officer in accordance with the principles of natural justice. (Para 35 )
6. Are judicial orders of civil courts amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution?
No, judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to Article 226. Such orders can only be challenged under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
7. What is the scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution?
The power is supervisory, not appellate, and must be exercised sparingly. It cannot be used as an appeal in disguise to re-assess evidence or interfere unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice. (Para 16 )
8. Does the appointment of a corporation's officer as an Inquiry Officer in eviction proceedings constitute institutional bias?
No, mere appointment of a corporation officer does not imply bias. The doctrine of nemo judex in causa sua requires proof of personal bias or interest; otherwise, the officer acts as a quasi-judicial authority. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 )
9. Can eviction proceedings be stayed if regulations under Section 105H of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act have not been framed?
No, the absence of regulations does not bar eviction proceedings as the power to frame them is discretionary. Proceedings may continue provided the principles of natural justice are adhered to. (Para 33 , 34 )
JUDGMENT
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 19th July, 2022 [impugned order, hereafter] passed on a batch of writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by a learned Judge of the High Court of Bombay.
3. The operative part of the impugned order expedites proceedings for eviction pending before the Inquiry Officer under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Act, hereafter] against the respondents in the manner directed within 12 months. This direction could not have and has not left the appellants aggrieved; however, they are seriously aggrieved for an altogether different reason, i.e. the learned Judge has framed points for determination by the Inquiry Officer. According to the appellants, proceedings for eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises are summary in nature where, upon a show cause notice being issued, the noticee is required to place his defence which the Inquiry Officer, as the delegate of the Municipal Commissioner, is required to consider, reasonably, and proceed to determine, in accordance with fair procedure, as to whether the noticee is indeed an unauthorised occupant. Also, the Inquiry Officer is under obligation to bear in mind the provisions in Chapter V-A of the Act titled ‘POWER TO EVICT PERSONS FROM CORPORATION PREMISES’, which is a code in itself, while so proceeding. In the present cases, the appellants submit, the learned Judge took upon himself the burden of framing points for determination and has, in effect, laid down a procedure which is not only contrary to the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Act but in the process has nullified binding decisions of the High Court and this Court and thrown legal principles asunder, by acting entirely in excess of jurisdiction.
4. Before proceeding further, it would be worthwhile to notice the basic facts triggering these appeals.
4.1. The respondents are occupants and/or legal heirs of the original occupants who were allotted the subject premises on leave and license basis in the 1960s, owing to their employment with the appellants.
4.2. In 2007, eviction proceedings were initiated against the respondents under the provisions of the Act. The respondents knocked the doors of the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction, seeking to convert their tenancy to permanent ownership on the basis of a resolution which had allegedly been passed by the Municipal Commissioner. The High Court firmly struck down such challenge by holding that the land belonged to the people and could not be the subject of State largesse, especially when the terms of the respective allotments categorically stated that the license would terminate upon the occupant’s retirement from municipal service. This Court, vide order dated 01st May, 2017 dismissed the challenge to the order of the High Court refusing to nullify the eviction proceedings, thus, stamping its approval on initiation and continuation of such proceedings.
4.3. Notices were issued to the respondents under section 105B(1) of the Act, directing them to vacate the premises which triggered the second round of litigation by the respondents. They assailed the same, inter alia, on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. The High Court by its order dated 8th December, 2021 allowed the challenge with a direction to the Inquiry Officer to decide the eviction proceedings de novo.
4.4. It is the re-commencement of these inquiry proceedings which has ultimately resulted in the present round of litigation. Put on notice, the respondents wished the Inquiry Officer to decide two primary contentions:
(i) whether in the absence of regulations framed under section 105H of the Act, the proceedings should continue; and (ii) whether the Municipal Commissioner ought to refer the dispute to any independent forum for a decision in a just, fair and unbiased manner. By an order dated 21st March, 2022, the Inquiry Officer ruled against the res
