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.

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