Tenant challenged eviction suit via writ petition seeking to re-open a slum declaration set aside 27 years prior. Court declined to entertain petition, summarily dismissed it as untenable. Reliance on retrospective plea post-decree rejected.
Writ petition summarily dismissed; petitioner's plea to stay eviction suit set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7105 OF 2007
Gunraj Yadav ..... ...... ......Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..... ...... .....Respondents.
Mr.Vijay J. Hegde, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Chincholikar, AGP For the respondent No.1.
Mr.Kunal Bhange, Adv. For respondent No.2.
CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 16/10/07
PC:
The respondent No.2 is the landlord who instituted a suit against the petitioner for eviction and possession. In the said suit the petitioner has raised ground in defence that the suit property is covered by a declaration issued under section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act, 1971 which is notified in the government gazette on 16.2.78. The plaintiff claims that the said declaration has been set aside in appeal on 27.6.79. The submission of the petitioner before the trial Court was that without the permission of the competent authority no decree can be passed as the property is comprised in the slum. It appears that the appellate order dated 27.6.79 was placed on record of the trial Court and hence by filing the present writ petition the tenant is challenging the appellate order dated 27.6.79. The appellate order which goes to set aside the declaration of slum has been passed 27 years before and the same has been challenged now solely with a view to raise the incidental plea that unless and until permission of the competent authority is obtained the suit cannot proceed. In this view of the matter I decline to entertain the writ petition. Writ petition is summarily dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be entertained twenty-seven years after the impugned appellate order setting aside a slum declaration
Whether the slum cover defence requires fresh permission from the competent authority before suit proceedings can continue
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gunraj Yadav
State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
A.P.Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
