Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.A. SAYED, J.
Anajanbai Mahadeo Thorave & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
Subhadra Pralhad Thorave & Ors. - Respondents
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 700 OF 2015
Decided On : 5.8.2015
MHAD Act - Occupation Rights - Regulation 33(7) of DCR - Section 2(25) of MHAD Act - [DCR, Regulation 33(7), MHAD Act, Section 2(25)] - The court discussed the rights of occupants under Regulation 33(7) of DCR and the definition of 'occupier' under Section 2(25) of the MHAD Act. It emphasized that certification by the MBR&R Board does not confer substantive rights and that the substantive rights of the parties are not adjudicated by the Board. The judgment highlighted that the scheme aims to ensure smooth redevelopment and rehabilitation of existing tenants/occupants, and the certification of the list of occupants is a fact-finding exercise to facilitate redevelopment. The court also clarified that the impugned order did not determine the rights of the parties and suggested approaching the appropriate court to assert their rights and seek reliefs.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenged an order directing the transfer of possession of a shop after redevelopment, which resulted in the deletion of the petitioners' names as occupants. The dispute arose from the redevelopment of a building and the transfer of tenancy rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the certification by the MBR&R Board does not confer substantive rights, and the impugned order did not determine the rights of the parties. It suggested approaching the appropriate court to assert their rights and seek reliefs.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the rights of the parties in respect of the shop after redevelopment, and the dispute arose from the deletion of the petitioners' names as occupants.
Ratio Decidendi: The certification by the MBR&R Board does not confer substantive rights, and the impugned order did not determine the rights of the parties. The court emphasized that the scheme aims to ensure smooth redevelopment and rehabilitation of existing tenants/occupants.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the court clarified that the impugned order did not affect the substantive rights of the parties. It suggested approaching the appropriate court to assert their rights and seek reliefs.
1. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, impugns the order dated 26 March 2014 passed by the Respondent No.3-Vice President & Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) whereby the Respondent No.1 was certified as the occupant of Shop No.5, Building No.215-22A, Kalachawky Road, D.L. Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai - 400 012 (hereinafter referred to as 'Shop No.5') and it was directed that Respondent No.1 be given possession of Shop No.5 after redevelopment. Consequently, the name of the Petitioners as occupants of Shop No.5 was deleted from the list of occupants.
2. One Mahadeo Shankar Thorave (hereinafter referred to as 'Mahadeo') was the tenant of Shop No.5. He died on or about 26 February 1990. The tenancy in respect of Shop No.5 was transferred to the name of the Petitioners Nos.1 & 2, being the wife and son respectively of Mahadeo. Respondent No.1 is wife of the other son of Mahadeo. In or about 2001-02, the tenants of the building wherein Shop No.5 was situate formed a Co-operative Housing Society in the name of Shreemontaka Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., as they desired to redevelop the said building. Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Developer for reconstruction of the building. Respondent No.4 Developer thereafter demolished the building in the year 2005 for the purpose of redevelopment under Regulation 33(7) of Development Control Regulations, 1991. According to the Petitioners, they were paying the rent to the landlord upto the year 2005. Respondent No.4 Developer had executed an Agreement with the eligible tenants/occupants of the building. It is the case of the Petitioners that they were found eligible and the Respondent No.4 Developer accordingly executed the Agreement with them. According to the Petitioners, they were carrying on business in Shop No.5 and were also residing in the rear portion and after demolition of the same, since they were not provided temporary alternate accommodation, they made their own arrangement and started residing at the address mentioned in the cause title of this Petition.
3. On 2 July 2007 the Respondent No.1 made an Application seeking deletion of the names of the Petitioners from the list of occupants. After hearing the Petitioners and Respondent No.1, the Chief Officer, Mumbai Building Repairs & Reconstruction Board, (MBR&R Board) passed an order on 6 May 2010 deleting the names of the Petitioners as occupants and held that only Respondent No.1 be shown as the occupant of Shop No.5. Being aggrieved by that order the Petitioners filed an Appeal before the Respondent No.3 - Vice President & Chief Executive Officer, MHADA, who passed an order dated 21 November 2011, setting aside the order dated 6 May 2010 and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. Respondent No.1 preferred a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.1949 of 2012 in this Court challenging the order dated 21 November 2011. This Court by an order dated 30 November 2012 set aside the order dated 21 November 2011 and remanded the matter to the Vice President & Chief Executive Officer, MHADA to decide the issue afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Accordingly, on 20 February 2014, the Vice President & Chief Executive Officer, MHADA passed an order holding that the Respondent No.1 is the occupant and she should be given possession after redevelopment. Being aggrieved by that order the Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.1874 of 2013 before this Court. By an order dated 4 October 2013 this Court again remanded the matter and directed the Vice President and Chief Executive Officer, MHADA to hear the parties and pass orders afresh. The Vice President and Chief Executive Officer, MHADA after hearing the parties passed the impugned order dated 26 March 2014 as indicated in para 1 hereinabove.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and the learned Counsel for Respondents Nos.2
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
