The Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging eviction orders passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The Petitioner contended that he was being evicted from his temporary structure without being provided the permanent alternate accommodation of commercial premises facing Khotkuwa Road as promised in the agreement dated 27.01.2016 with the developer.
The Bombay High Court upheld eviction orders passed under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, ruling that a slum occupant cannot delay a rehabilitation project by demanding a specific location of permanent alternate commercial premises. The petitioner relied on a prior agreement claiming entitlement to a road-facing shop in the rehabilitation building. The Court held that eviction proceedings have a limited scope and only examine whether continued occupation obstructs the slum rehabilitation scheme. Disputes regarding the location or contractual rights over rehabilitation premises must be pursued separately. Emphasizing public interest, the Court ruled that individual claims cannot stall a project affecting several eligible occupants. While the eviction was upheld, the petitioner was granted liberty to seek appropriate remedies regarding permanent alternate accommodation after vacating the premises.
A) Slum Rehabilitation Law – Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Sections 33 & 38---Slum dweller occupying temporary structure refused to vacate on the ground of entitlement to permanent alternate commercial premises facing Khotkuwa Road as per prior agreement – Eviction ordered by Competent Authority under Sections 33 & 38 – Appeal before AGRC dismissed – Writ petition challenging eviction and AGRC order--- Held, scope of proceedings under Sections 33 & 38 is extremely limited – Authority is only required to examine whether continued occupation obstructs implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Issues relating to location, orientation or nature of permanent alternate accommodation cannot be adjudicated in eviction proceedings – Petitioner cannot stall rehabilitation project on the ground of alleged contractual entitlement – Eviction upheld.
B) Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Obstruction of Project – Permanent Alternate Accommodation – Road-facing Shop--Petitioner’s claim for allotment of road-facing commercial premises cannot be made a condition precedent for vacating temporary structure – Fire NOC and Occupation Certificate withheld due to existence of structures – Majority of eligible slum dwellers deprived of rehabilitation – Public interest in completion of scheme outweighs individual preference – Remedy regarding dispute over permanent alternate accommodation kept expressly open, but petitioner must first vacate – Writ Petition dismissed; interim stay granted for three weeks.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the eviction orders passed under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act. The Court held that a slum occupant cannot resist eviction by insisting on a particular location of permanent alternate commercial accommodation. It ruled that disputes regarding the nature or location of rehabilitation premises fall outside the limited scope of eviction proceedings and must be pursued separately. While affirming eviction, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise his rehabilitation claim in appropriate proceedings after vacating the structure.
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 75
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2892 of 2025
Date of Decision: 2026-01-19
Case Title: The Issue of whether the eviction orders passed under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Act were justified when the developer had failed to fulfill contractual obligations regarding allocation of permanent alternate accommodation
Before Judge: Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:BHC-OS:1414
Advocate(s): Mr. Vishal Kanade, Mr. Janay Jain a/w Mr. Ashwin S. Tripathi for Petitioner, Ms. Aparna D. Vhatkar for Respondent No. 1 - AGRC, Ms. Ravleen Sabharwala a/w Ms. Aarushi Yadav and Mr. Prakhar Tandon for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 - SRA, Mr. Shashikant Surana a/w Mr. Madhur Surana for Respondent No. 4
Appellant: Arvind Pravinkumar Mehta
Respondent: The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Developer, Jai Hanuman SRA Co-Operative Housing Society (Ltd.)
Nature of Litigation: Writ petition challenging eviction orders passed under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971
Remedy Sought: Petitioner sought writs of certiorari to quash eviction orders dated 31.12.2024/01.01.2025 and 06.05.2025 and restrain modification of approved rehabilitation plan
Filing Reason: Petitioner was being evicted without being provided permanent alternate accommodation as promised in the agreement dated 27.01.2016
Previous Decisions: Respondent No. 2 (SRA) passed eviction order dated 01.01.2025 under Sections 33 and 38 of Maharashtra Slum Act -- Respondent No. 1 (AGRC) dismissed appeal and confirmed eviction order dated 06.05.2025
Issues: Whether the eviction orders passed under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Act were justified when the developer had failed to fulfill contractual obligations regarding allocation of permanent alternate accommodation Whether the authorities properly considered the Petitioner's contractual rights under the agreement dated 27.01.2016 before ordering eviction
Submissions/Arguments: Petitioner argued that as per Clause 5 of agreement dated 27.01.2016, he was entitled to commercial premises facing Khotkuwa Road -- Petitioner contended that approved plans dated 19.05.2023 showed commercial premises facing Khotkuwa Road -- Petitioner submitted that he was ready to vacate within 3 days if allocated promised premises -- Respondents argued that Petitioner was not cooperating and his structure was preventing issuance of Fire Department NOC and Occupation Certificate -- Respondents claimed commercial premises would be allocated within five months of receiving Occupation Certificate
Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 have a limited scope, confined to examining whether continued occupation of a structure obstructs implementation of a slum rehabilitation scheme. A slum occupant cannot resist or delay eviction on the ground of entitlement to a particular location or nature of permanent alternate accommodation. Disputes relating to contractual or rehabilitation entitlements must be agitated independently after vacating the obstructing structure and cannot be used to stall a public redevelopment project.
Judgment Excerpts: “The scope of proceedings under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act is limited. The authority is only required to consider whether the continued occupation of a structure is obstructing the implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme.” “The petitioner cannot resist eviction on the ground that he claims entitlement to a particular location of permanent alternate commercial premises in the rehabilitation building.” “Disputes relating to the nature, location or orientation of permanent alternate accommodation cannot be decided in proceedings under Sections 33 and 38 and must be agitated in appropriate independent proceedings.” “Persons like the petitioner cannot be permitted to block the entire rehabilitation scheme, thereby depriving a large number of eligible slum dwellers of their rehabilitation tenements.”
Procedural History: 27.01.2016 - Agreement entered between Petitioner and developer for commercial premises facing Khotkuwa Road -- 03.02.2023 - Respondent No. 4 appointed as developer -- 19.05.2023 - Plans approved showing commercial premises facing Khotkuwa Road -- 24.07.2024 and 07.10.2024 - Developer submitted proposals for action under Sections 33 and 38 of Maharashtra Slum Act -- 12.11.2024 - Show cause notice issued to Petitioner -- 01.01.2025 - Respondent No. 2 passed eviction order -- 09.01.2025 - Petitioner filed appeal before AGRC -- 06.05.2025 - Respondent No. 1 dismissed appeal -- 2025 - Writ Petition filed before High Court -- 17.12.2025 - Matter reserved for judgment -- 19.01.2026 - Judgment pronounced
