Dismissed

Sadanand Sambaji Gaikwad and Ors. v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Nov 2012APP/688/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal challenging the MHADA's order under Section 95A of the MHADA Act, 1976. The court held that the orders were implementing City Civil Court directions. The appeal stands dismissed, but implementation is stayed until the appellants vacate the premises by November 18, 2012.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. MHADA is restrained from implementing the impugned order till November 18, 2012, provided appellants vacate premises peacefully; otherwise, dispossess them.

Sadanand Sambaji Gaikwad and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Housing… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

gopi

¶2

APP-766-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL LODGING NO.766 OF 2012 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2388 OF 2012

¶6

1.Sadanand Sambaji Gaikwad & Ors. ..Appellants Versus

¶7

1.Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Ors.

¶8

..Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Mandar Soman for the Appellants. Mr. P.G. Lad for respondent No.1. Mr. J.S. Saluja, AGP for respondent No.7. Mr. Vaibhav Joglekar with Mr. R.M. Vanoo for respondent No.4.

¶10

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 06 November 2012.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The appellants, 9 in number, challenge the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition in which the appellants challenged the order dated 10 May 2012 of the Executive Engineer of the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976.

¶13

Out of 44 members, 35 have vacated the premises.

¶14

The learned counsel for the appellants sought to raise various contentions. We are, however, not inclined to permit the appellants to raise those contentions particularly because the City Civil Court which was seized of the disputes has already passed order dated 26 July 2010 directing the developer to provide transit accommodation to the occupants and then to proceed further for demolition of the old premises. The City Civil Court has further directed that if members of the plaintiff society do not cooperate,

1/2

APP-766-12

gopi

MHADA may be approached for appropriate action under Section 95-A of the MHADA Act. Those orders of the City Civil Court were not challenged at the relevant time and, therefore, all that the MHADA has done by issuing the impugned orders under Section 95-A of the MHADA Act is to implement the directions of the City Civil Court.

¶19

The impugned orders have been passed after issuing show cause notice and after giving appellants an opportunity. Merely because the appellants seek to raise the disputes about the merits of the scheme, although 35 out of 44 occupants have been cooperated by vacating the premises, the implementation of the redevelopment scheme cannot be allowed to be stalled by permitting the appellants to raise frivolous objections particularly when the appellants had given consent in the year 2004 for redevelopment.

¶20

5. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.

¶21

The learned counsel for the appellants states under instructions that the appellants will vacate the premises by 18 November 2012 and shift to the situ transit accommodation. In view of the above statement, the MHADA shall not implement the impugned order till 18 November 2012. In case the appellants do not hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises in question, the respondents will be at liberty to dispossess them on 19 November 2012.

¶22

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶23

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶24

2/2

Sadanand Sambaji Gaikwad and Ors. v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanand Sambaji Gaikwad and Ors. v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

City Space and 2 Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 and Mulund Panchsheetal Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.- Applicant

The Estate Officer, and Ors. Vs M/S Amar Pharma and Equipments and Ors.

M/S. Kashimira Medical and General Stores, through Prop. Mukesh K. Parikh Vs the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Purohit Vs Vasantrai Lavji Mehta

Rajendra Shankarlal Mutha Vs Dilip Shankarlal Mutha and Others

M/S. Kashimira Medical and General Stores, through Prop. Mukesh K. Parikh Vs the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, State of Maharashtra and Ors.