The authority needs to examine specific requirements under Section 95-A, and the provision is not intended to provide a forum for adjudication of inter se disputes between the society, its members, and the developer.

S.C.Gupte, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This petition challenges an eviction order passed by Respondent No.3, Executive Engineer of Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, under Section 95-A of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. The ground of challenge is two fold. Firstly, it is submitted that there was no compliance with the principles of natural justice when the order of eviction was passed. It is submitted that the Petitioners, who were noticees under Section 95-A, had filed a reply to the notice seeking in particular various documents from MHADA. Learned Counsel submits that these documents had an important bearing on the power or authority of the Executive Engineer to issue a notice under Section 95-A, in the first place, and decide the same. Learned Counsel submits that these documents were not furnished to the Petitioners. Secondly, it is submitted that the notice was issued purportedly on the basis of an NOC granted by MHADA to Respondent No.4 developer to develop and reconstruct the property and extensions granted to that NOC from time to time. Learned Counsel submits that the NOC and its extensions have been granted illegally. It is submitted that on the basis of such NOC and extensions, the authority had no power or authority to issue any notice under Section 95-A for evicting the Petitioners.

3. So far as the grievance of non-furnishing of documents called for is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the eviction notices were issued under Section 95-A to a number of occupants including the Petitioners herein. The advocate representing the Petitioners in the present petition was also representing some other occupants on whose behalf a separate petition was filed in this court and which was incidentally withdrawn when it came up for admission. The NOC granted by MHADA and its various extensions were made available to the advocate in that other matter. These documents are even annexed to the present petition. The real grievance is that the basis of MHADA issuing the NOC and its extensions is not disclosed to the Petitioners. This court considered the scope of an inquiry by the competent authority under Section 95-A of the Act in the case of Radhika George vs. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Appeal (L) No.359/2012 decided on 4.7.2012). The court held that the object of the legislature in introducing the amendments to the Act including Section 95-A was to give an opportunity to the occupants of old structures who were unable to develop for lack of resources to move to better accommodation and at the same time create additional housing for general consumption. Section 95-A was enacted to enable speedy implementation of such redevelopment schemes. When the housing societies decide to get their premises redeveloped, care should be taken that members should have premises to stay when the original building is demolished and is being reconstructed. The members should not be left in the lurch while redevelopment goes on at its own pace. Thus, our court held, what the authority needs to examine whilst passing an order under Section 95-A is (i) whether it is a collective decision, i.e. 70% of members have consented to it; (ii) whether permissions like NOC are in place and (iii) whether the developer has provided adequate transit accommodation. Once the authority under Section 95-A finds that these requirements are fulfilled, all that it does is to direct the members to shift to the transit accommodation whilst awaiting reconstruction. Any action under Section 95-A, thus, does not result in determining rights of the parties per se. The provision is not intended to provide a forum for adjudication of inter se disputes between the society, its members and the developer. These disputes would have to be necessarily adjudicated in a competent court of law. The proceedings under Section 95-A, thus, cannot be converted into a full-fledged judicial proceeding as if