Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the tenants of a chawl premises who were evicted during the course of redevelopment without following the due process of law. The Court held that the tenancy rights of the petitioners continued to exist despite the redevelopment and that their possession could not have been taken over without lawful eviction. The Court directed the developer to restore possession or provide alternate accommodation in accordance with the policy framed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. It further quashed the eviction order and mutation entries carried out in favour of the developer, citing that such acts were “without authority of law” and “in breach of natural justice.”
Facts
The petitioners were tenants of residential units in a building located in Mumbai, which had been in existence since before 1995. The building was proposed for redevelopment under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, and a developer was appointed by the Housing Society to undertake redevelopment. While the petitioners were still occupying their respective premises and had not vacated the property, their possession was forcibly taken, and they were excluded from the redevelopment project.
The developer claimed to have taken over possession based on certain resolutions and orders obtained from the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, including an eviction notice issued under Section 33/38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The petitioners contended that they had never received notice of the eviction and were never heard in any proceeding before being dispossessed.
Issues
- Whether the eviction of the petitioners from the tenanted premises was lawful?
- Whether due process was followed before the developer took possession?
- Whether the petitioners continued to have tenancy rights under the applicable law?
- Whether the eviction orders and mutation entries in favour of the developer were sustainable?
- Whether the petitioners were entitled to restoration of possession or rehabilitation benefits under the redevelopment scheme?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners submitted that they were in lawful possession of the premises as tenants, and that their eviction was carried out behind their backs without any notice or hearing. They argued that the eviction proceedings were initiated and concluded without serving any notice to them, thereby violating principles of natural justice. They contended that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority’s orders were passed ex parte and were liable to be set aside. The petitioners also relied upon documentary evidence showing continuous residence at the premises, including electricity bills and identification cards.
They also argued that the developer, in collusion with the Society and local authorities, obtained mutation entries and proceeded with redevelopment work, completely ignoring their rights as lawful occupants. As per their argument, no alternative accommodation or compensation was provided, nor were they included in the redevelopment scheme as required under the Slum Rehabilitation policy.
Respondent’s Arguments
The developer argued that the building was declared a slum and marked for redevelopment. As part of the process, eviction notices were issued to all occupants, and action was taken based on the consent obtained from a majority of residents. The respondents claimed that the petitioners were aware of the proceedings and had voluntarily vacated the premises. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority supported this version and submitted that it had issued eviction orders under Section 33/38 of the Maharashtra Slum Act after following proper procedure.
The developer also contended that alternative accommodation would be provided after the redevelopment project was completed. It denied allegations of forcible possession or procedural irregularities and insisted that the petitioners had no subsisting rights.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act and emphasised that any eviction under the Act must strictly comply with the requirements of notice, hearing, and reasoned order. The Court noted that Section 33/38 confers power on the Competent Authority to evict occupants, but only after providing them an opportunity to be heard.
It held that no eviction can be carried out without first determining whether the person is in lawful possession and giving them a fair chance to present their case. The Court also referred to the principle that forcible eviction, even if the person is an unauthorised occupant, is impermissible and amounts to breach of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Precedent Analysis
- Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao – Cited to establish that forcible eviction without consent is unconstitutional and violates dignity and liberty.
- Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh – Quoted for the principle that no person can be deprived of possession without due process of law.
- K.K. Verma v. Union of India – Held that even an unauthorised occupant cannot be dispossessed without a legal procedure.
- Krishna Bai Kashi Bai v. Prakash Developers – Emphasised the need to provide rehabilitation or alternate housing to lawful occupants during redevelopment.
- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh – Relied upon to reiterate that mutation entries are not conclusive proof of ownership or possession.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the eviction of the petitioners was in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory safeguards. The eviction notice and order were passed without proper service, and there was no evidence to show that the petitioners were given a hearing. It rejected the contention that the petitioners had voluntarily vacated, noting the lack of documentary proof and the continuous efforts of the petitioners to assert their rights.
The Court stated:
“Dispossession of a lawful occupant cannot be justified on grounds of administrative convenience or presumed consent. The process must be transparent, fair, and strictly in accordance with law.”
It was further held that the rehabilitation of tenants is not merely a formality, but a statutory right under the Slum Rehabilitation policy, and the petitioners were wrongly excluded from its benefits.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:
- The eviction order passed under Section 33/38 of the Slum Act is quashed.
- Mutation entries in favour of the developer are set aside.
- The developer is directed to restore possession to the petitioners or provide alternate accommodation as per the Slum Rehabilitation norms.
- The Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall ensure that the petitioners are treated as eligible occupants and given the same rehabilitation benefits as others.
Implications
This judgment reaffirms the legal protections available to tenants and lawful occupants under redevelopment schemes. It reinforces the requirement of due process and procedural fairness before eviction and mandates that authorities and developers must respect tenants’ rights. The ruling also reminds municipal bodies and SRA to ensure compliance with rehabilitation policies and not to act mechanically on the representations of developers or societies.
Referred Judgments Summary
- Krishna Ram Mahale – Highlighted the illegality of forcible eviction.
- Lallu Yeshwant Singh – Reinforced the need for legal procedure in dispossession.
- Hindustan Petroleum v. Dilbahar Singh – Mutation entries are not evidence of title.
- K.K. Verma – Established protection from eviction even for unauthorised occupants.
- Krishna Bai v. Prakash Developers – Emphasised inclusion of tenants in redevelopment benefits.
FAQs
1. Can a tenant be evicted during redevelopment without notice?
No. Any eviction must follow due process under the Slum Act, including notice, hearing, and reasoned orders.
2. Do tenants have rights under Slum Rehabilitation projects?
Yes. Tenants in slum structures prior to the cut-off date are entitled to rehabilitation and cannot be excluded arbitrarily.
3. Are mutation entries proof of legal possession?
No. Mutation entries are for revenue records and do not confer ownership or legal possession.