Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 2363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.A. Sayed, J.
Anajanbai Mahadeo Thorave and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Subhadra Pralhad Thorave and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No. 700 of 2015
Decided On : 05.08.2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.M. Khankar, Adv.
For the Respondents: S.A. Inamdar, S.P. Thorat and Amit Shastri, A.G.P.
Headnote:Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976 - Section 2(25) Development Control Regulation for Greater Mumbai, 1991, Regulation 33(7) Occupancy certificate. - Mere certification by MBR and R Board of list of occupants, not confers any right on tenants to challenge occupancy certificate granted to occupant. - In the present case, the Authorities on the basis of documents including ’video recording’ have come to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 prior to demolition of the buildings was the occupant of Shop No. 5. In the circumstances, Court is not inclined to interfere with this finding of fact arrived at by the Authorities. Besides, the certification by MBR&R Board of the list of occupants has by now in great measure lost its significance since respondent No. 5 has already been re-accommodated in the newly developed building. Really speaking, if the tenant and occupant are different persons, the list certified by MBR&R Board should reflect that position in clear terms. Be that as it may, I deem it necessary to observe that the respondent No. 1 has been re-accommodated in the new Shop No. 5 merely because she was occupying the old Shop No. 5 and this would not create an automatic right in her favour in the new Shop No. 5. The impugned order cannot be said to have determined any rights of the respondent No. 1 or of the petitioners for that matter in respect of the new Shop No. 5. Court is unable to accede to the request made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners be put in joint occupation with respondent No. 1 of Shop No. 5. There is no such prayer even in the writ petition.
A.A. Sayed, J.
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. 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.
2. 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.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1
