1. Eviction under Sections 33 and 38 of Maharashtra Slum Act — Challenge to eviction order by occupant of temporary structure in slum rehabilitation scheme. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 145
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA
ARVIND PRAVINKUMAR MEHTA – Appellant
Versus
THE APEX GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE – Respondent
WP/2892/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vishal Kanade, Janay Jain, Ashwin S. Tripathi
For the Respondents: Aparna D. Vhatkar, Ravleen Sabharwal, Aarushi Yadav, Prakhar Tandon, Shshikant Surana, Madhur Surana
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vishal Kanade, Janay Jain, Ashwin S. Tripathi
For the Respondents: Aparna D. Vhatkar, Ravleen Sabharwal, Aarushi Yadav, Prakhar Tandon, Shshikant Surana, Madhur Surana
Occupants cannot resist eviction under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Act by claiming a right to a specific location of alternate accommodation. Such disputes cannot stall rehabilitation projects and must be pursued through separate legal remedies after vacating the structure.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - Sections 33 and 38 - Eviction of occupants - Scope of power of the competent authority - Limited jurisdiction to ensure progress of redevelopment scheme - Authority is only required to consider if a person has failed to vacate a structure and if such failure is affecting the progress of the project - No jurisdiction to test the validity of the scheme or specific entitlement details (Paras 11-14).
(B) Permanent alternate accommodation - Refusal to vacate based on desire for specific location or road-facing premises - Not a valid ground to resist eviction under Sections 33/38 - An occupant cannot obstruct the delivery of possession or stall a rehabilitation project merely because the provided accommodation is not at a desired location - Grievances regarding the nature of accommodation must be sought through separate legal remedies (Paras 15-18).
Facts of the case:
A commercial occupant in a slum rehabilitation project refused to vacate a temporary structure, asserting a right to be provided permanent alternate accommodation facing a specific road as per a prior agreement. This non-cooperation prevented the fire department from issuing a No Objection Certificate, thereby stalling the issuance of the Occupation Certificate and depriving other eligible residents of their rehabilitation tenements. The competent authority and the grievance redressal committee subsequently ordered the eviction of the occupant.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the orders of eviction were legal and not perverse. It held that the obstruction caused by a few occupants cannot be permitted to block an entire rehabilitation scheme, especially when the issuance of the Occupation Certificate is contingent upon the removal of such structures.
Issues: Whether an occupant can resist eviction under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Act on the ground of entitlement to a specific location of permanent alternate accommodation.
Ratio Decidendi: The authority under Sections 33/38 possesses limited jurisdiction, restricted to determining whether a person's failure to vacate is obstructing the progress of the project. It cannot interfere with the final sanctioned scheme or adjudicate on the merits of specific tenement allocations. Any dispute regarding the nature or location of the alternate accommodation must be pursued through appropriate legal proceedings after the occupant vacates the structure; such claims cannot be a condition precedent for vacating.
Result: The Writ Petition is dismissed. The Rule is discharged.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: entitlement to road-facing commercial premises per agreement. Respondent: eviction necessary; scope of proceedings limited. (Para 4 , 6 )
3. Scope of Sections 33/38 is limited; authority cannot decide validity of scheme or allocation. Petitioner cannot resist eviction on allocation dispute. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Under Sections 33/38 of Maharashtra Slum Act, eviction cannot be resisted on ground of entitlement to specific permanent alternate accommodation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
5. Writ Petition dismissed. Eviction orders upheld. Petitioner may seek remedy regarding permanent alternate accommodation separately. (Para 23 , 24 )
6. What is the scope of proceedings under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act?
The scope is limited: the authority only considers whether the occupant has failed to vacate and whether this affects the scheme. It cannot decide the validity of the scheme or allocation. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
7. Can an occupant resist eviction under Sections 33/38 based on a dispute over permanent alternate accommodation?
No. An occupant cannot resist eviction on the ground of entitlement to a specific type or location of permanent alternate accommodation. That issue must be raised separately. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
JUDGEMENT:-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties.
2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following final reliefs:
(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ / Order / Direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash, set aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 passed by respondent No.1 (Exhibit-C);
(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ / Order / Direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash, set aside the Impugned order dated 31.12.2024 / 01.01.2025, passed by the Respondent No.2 (Exhibit-A) and the Petitioner Petition may be allowed in the interest of justice;
(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain respondent No.3 from permitting any change/modification in the approved plan dated 19.05.2023 to the extent of shifting of permanent alternate accommodation of the petitioner from Shop No.3 of the subsisting approved plan to any other shop or portion of the rehabilitation building.”
3. Mr.Kanade, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, made submissions in support of the Petition.
4. Mr.Kanade submitted as follows:
a. As per Clause 5 of the Agreement dated 27th January 2016 entered into between the erstwhile developer, the Respondent No.5 Society and the Petitioner, it was agreed that the Petitioner would be provided permanent alternate accommodation of commercial premises facing Khotkuwa Road.
b. Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Developer on 3rd February 2023.
c. In May 2023, Respondent No.4 got approved plans which showed that the commercial premises in the Rehabilitation Building were facing the Khotkuwa Road.
d. The Petitioner did not vacate his temporary structure as he was not being provided permanent alternate accommodation facing Khotkuwa Road as per the Agreement dated 27th January 2016 and the plans approved in May 2023.
e. Respondent No.4 submitted proposals dated 24th July 2024 and 7th October 2024 for taking action against the Petitioner under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Maharashtra Slum Act”).
f. Respondent No.2 issued a Notice dated 12th November 2024 calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the temporary structure occupied by him.
g. Before Respondent No.2, the Petitioner argued that the Rehabilitation building was 99% complete and that the Petitioner was ready to vacate his existing slum within 3 days. However, as per the approved layout dated 19th May 2023, Respondent No.4 should allocate to the Petitioner commercial premises in the Rehabilitation building. However, Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were delaying the allotment of commercial premises shown in the approved layout i.e. commercial premises facing the Khotkuwa Road.
h. Before Respondent No.2, Respondent No.4 submitted that the Petitioner was not cooperating in the Rehabilitation Scheme. Despite being informed by way of letters to vacate his temporary structure, the Petitioner had remained un-cooperative. Due to the temporary structure of the Petitioner and some other persons, the CFO NOC was pending. Respondent No.4 further submitted that the commercial premises in the Rehabilitation building would be allocated to the Petitioner within five months of receiving the Occupation Certificate.
i. By an Order dated 1st January 2025, Respondent No.2 held that the Petitioner and certain other persons were not cooperating in vacating their temporary structures and were causing obstruction to the Scheme. The Rehabilitation building was ready but certain structures located at its entrance (which included the structure of the Petitioner) were preventing the issuance of the Fire Department NOC and the OC. In these circumstances, immediate eviction of these structures [which included the structure of the Petitioner] was essential. Respondent No.
