Supreme Court Allows Landlord's Appeal in Slum Area Eviction Case — High Court's Remand Set Aside as Appellate Authority Had Adequately Considered Section 22(4) Factors. The Court held that the High Court ought not to have interfered under Article 227 when the Appellate Authority had considered the relevant factors under Section 22(4) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 and the eviction decree had attained finality.

  • 7
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Kumud w/o Mahadeorao Salunke, was the landlord of premises governed by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971. She sought eviction of the respondent-tenant, Shri Pandurang Narayan Gandhewar (through LRs), initially under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The Rent Controller granted permission, and the landlord terminated tenancy under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and filed Civil Suit No. 334 of 1996. The tenant objected that permission under Section 22 of the Slum Act was required. The suit was withdrawn, and the landlord applied to the Slum Authority, which granted permission on 28.11.2000. After remand, the Slum Authority again granted permission on 30.05.2002. The tenant's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 31.10.2002, which considered the factors under Section 22(4) including alternative accommodation. The landlord then filed Civil Suit No. 113 of 2003, which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 27.09.2007. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal on 17.08.2010, decreeing eviction and arrears; this decree was not challenged and became final. Meanwhile, the tenant filed Writ Petition No. 2199 of 2003 challenging the Slum Authority's permission. The High Court allowed the writ on 19.06.2014, holding that the Slum Authority had not considered the factors under Section 22(4)(a)-(c) and that the Appellate Authority's consideration could not cure the defect; it remitted the matter. The Supreme Court, in appeal, held that the High Court erred. The Appellate Authority had adequately considered the Section 22(4) factors, and the eviction decree had attained finality. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the Appellate Authority's order dated 31.10.2002, and allowed the appeal with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Rent Control and Slum Laws - Permission for Eviction - Section 22(4) of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971 - Consideration by Appellate Authority - The landlord sought eviction of tenant from premises in a slum area. The Slum Authority granted permission under Section 22, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority after considering the factors under Section 22(4). The High Court remitted the matter holding that the competent authority had not applied its mind. The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Authority's consideration of those factors was sufficient and the High Court ought not to have interfered under Article 227, especially when the eviction decree had attained finality. (Paras 8-10)

B) Civil Procedure - Finality of Decree - Eviction Decree - The civil suit for eviction filed after obtaining permission from the Slum Authority was decreed by the Appellate Court and the decree was not challenged, thus attaining finality. The Supreme Court held that this finality could not be ignored by the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction. (Paras 5, 9)

C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court's power under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate. Where the Appellate Authority had adequately dealt with the issue, the High Court should not substitute its view. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Appellate Authority's order. (Paras 10-11)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court was justified in remitting the matter to the Slum Authority on the ground that the competent authority had not considered the factors under Section 22(4) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971, despite the Appellate Authority having considered those factors and the eviction decree having attained finality.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment and order dated 19.06.2014 in Writ Petition No. 2199 of 2003, and restored the order dated 31.10.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Section 22(4) of Maharashtra Slum Areas Act
  • 1971
  • Article 227 of Constitution of India
  • C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order
  • 1949
  • Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act
  • 1882
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (5) 17

Civil Appeal No. 4873 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10469 of 2015)

2019-05-10

Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra

Dr. A. Rajeev B. Masodkar (for appellant), Mr. Kishor Lambat (for respondents)

Kumud w/o Mahadeorao Salunke

Shri Pandurang Narayan Gandhewar Through Lrs. & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against High Court order remitting matter to Slum Authority for fresh consideration of permission under Section 22 of Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971.

Remedy Sought

The appellant-landlord sought setting aside of the High Court's order and restoration of the Appellate Authority's order granting permission to evict the tenant.

Filing Reason

The High Court set aside the Slum Authority's permission and remitted the matter, holding that the competent authority had not considered factors under Section 22(4) of the Slum Act.

Previous Decisions

Rent Controller granted permission; Slum Authority granted permission on 30.05.2002; Appellate Authority confirmed on 31.10.2002; Civil Suit decreed by Appellate Court on 17.08.2010 (final); High Court allowed writ on 19.06.2014 remitting the matter.

Issues

Whether the High Court was justified in remitting the matter to the Slum Authority on the ground that the competent authority had not considered the factors under Section 22(4) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971, despite the Appellate Authority having considered those factors. Whether the finality of the eviction decree should have been considered by the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the Appellate Authority had adequately considered the factors under Section 22(4) and the eviction decree had attained finality, so the High Court ought not to have interfered. Respondent argued that the competent authority had not applied its mind and the Appellate Authority's consideration could not cure the defect.

Ratio Decidendi

Where the Appellate Authority under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 has considered the factors enumerated in Section 22(4) in sufficient detail, the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 ought not to interfere merely because the competent authority did not record such consideration, especially when the eviction decree has attained finality.

Judgment Excerpts

In the circumstances, the view that weighed with the High Court was not correct. The respondent had opportunity at every stage to present his case and whether the requirements of Section 22(4) of the Act stood satisfied or not was a matter which was dealt with by the Appellate Authority in sufficient detail. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated 19.06.2014 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.2199 of 2003 and restore the order dated 31.10.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority.

Procedural History

1. Landlord sought permission from Rent Controller under C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949; permission granted. 2. Landlord terminated tenancy under Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and filed Civil Suit No. 334 of 1996. 3. Tenant objected that premises governed by Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971; suit withdrawn. 4. Landlord applied to Slum Authority; permission granted on 28.11.2000; remanded; permission granted again on 30.05.2002. 5. Tenant's appeal dismissed by Appellate Authority on 31.10.2002. 6. Landlord filed Civil Suit No. 113 of 2003; dismissed by Trial Court on 27.09.2007. 7. Appellate Court allowed appeal on 17.08.2010, decreeing eviction; decree became final. 8. Tenant filed Writ Petition No. 2199 of 2003 challenging Slum Authority's permission; High Court allowed writ on 19.06.2014, remitting matter. 9. Landlord appealed to Supreme Court; appeal allowed on 10.05.2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971: 22, 22(4), 22(4)(a), 22(4)(b), 22(4)(c)
  • C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949:
  • Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 108
  • Constitution of India: 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeals of Higher-Ranked Candidates in J&K Police Sub-Inspector Recruitment Dispute. Court Holds That Concession by Advocate General Cannot Override Statutory Rules and Right to Equality Under Article 14.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Landlord's Appeal in Slum Area Eviction Case — High Court's Remand Set Aside as Appellate Authority Had Adequately Considered Section 22(4) Factors. The Court held that the High Court ought not to have interfered under Article ...