The central legal point established in the judgment is that the civil court retains jurisdiction to examine issues where the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 2003 have not been complied with or where the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with fundamental judicial procedure.

1. Admit. By consent, the First Appeal is heard finally and decided at the stage of admission, as short law point is involved.

2. This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6th June, 2016 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai in L.C. Suit No. 3255 of 2015 thereby rejecting the said suit on the ground of maintainability under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit for simplicitor injunction that the respondents/defendant nos. 1 to 4 shall not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and the occupants through the plaintiff and not to prevent the entry of the plaintiff and the occupants from entering into the suit land, i.e., Survey no. 101 corresponding to CTS No. 778 and 777B, Survey No. 99, Hissa No. 1 corresponding to CTS No. 664 and Survey No. 99, Hissa No. 2 corresponding to CTS No. 663, 665 part, 666 and 667 of village Ambivali in the area known as Santosh Niwas and Sai Niwas otherwise than due process of law.

3. It is the case of the appellant-plaintiff that he is the owner of the structures standing on the suit land and he let out the structures to nearly 180 tenants. The structures are standing prior to 1965. The defendant nos. 2 and 3 are the tenants of the plaintiff. Defendant no. 1 is claiming to be a builder and brought by defendant nos. 2 and 3 for the purpose of development of the suit property. In fact, 90% of the tenants have given consent in favour of the plaintiff to take steps for redevelopment of suit property, but the defendants are threatening them and the plaintiff. On 9th November, 2015, higher links of the respondents/defendants started forcibly asking the tenants to sign certain papers and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for injunction. After notice, the defendants appeared. They filed their written statement and raised the issue of maintainability mainly on the ground that the plaintiff is a slum lord. The suit area is declared as slum by the Government Notification and therefore, no suit can be entertained by the Civil Court to obtain any such orders in respect of implementation of the scheme. The short point of determination involved in the Appeal as –

“Whether the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) that the suit is barred under section 42 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) (Amendment) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is illegal and wrong”

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the plaint, the appellant/plaintiff is not asking any relief against the authority working under the Act. He seeks relief against the private parties who are threatening him and compelling the tenants to sign the papers in favour of defendant no. 1/developer. He submitted that the plaintiff may lose his case on merits, however, the suit itself is not barred under section 42 of the Act. He submitted that the averments in the plaint and the relief prayed in the plaint cannot be covered within the ambit of section 42 of the Act. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Qari Mohammad Zakir Hussain & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors., reported in 2002(2) Bom. C.R. 98. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that whether the area is declared slum or not is irrelevant, as the appellant seeks some other relief than that under the Slum Act.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed the fact that the suit area is declared as slum by the Government Notification. The defendants, who are the occupiers in the slum have decided who should be their developer, however, the plaintiff being the slum lord, is trying to obstruct this process and therefore, he has not come to the Court with clean