Dismissed

Adil D Karkaria v. the Mumbai Repairs and Reconstruction Board and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Dec 2016WP/1248/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged eviction notice under Section 95(A) of MHADA issued for failure to furnish litigation details. Court held eviction on this ground cannot be passed; opportunity of hearing mandatory.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of, holding that eviction cannot be passed on failure to furnish information without an opportunity of hearing.

Adil D Karkaria Vs the Mumbai Repairs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

wp-1248.16

pmw

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1248 OF 2016

Adil D. Karkaria

… Petitioner

Versus

The Mumbai Repairs and Reconstruction Board and Ors. … Respondents

¶10

Mr. M.M. Vashi, Senior Counsel i/by M.P. Vashi Associates for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. S.G. Surana for the Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : A.S. OKA & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 7^th DECEMBER, 2016

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1 Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2. Perused the impugned communication dated 21^st January, 2016. By the said communication, the Petitioner has been called upon by the Respondent No.1 to furnish information regarding pending litigations against the second Respondent. It is further stated that if information is not furnished, action of eviction under Section 95(A) of the Maharashtra Housing Area Development Act, 1976 (for short “the said Act”) will have to be initiated.

1 of 2

wp-1248.16

2 Action under Section 95(A) of the said Act can be initiated only on specific grounds. Certainly said action cannot be initiated on the ground that the Petitioner has failed to furnish information regarding pending litigations. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that as per the knowledge of the Petitioner, R.A.E. Suit No.859/1361/2007 filed by the second Respondent is pending in the Court of Small Causes in Mumbai.

¶20

3 In view of what is observed above, it is not necessary to entertain this Petition. Needless to add that the order of eviction by taking recourse to Section 95(A) of the said Act of 1976 cannot be passed unless the Petitioner is given an opportunity of being heard in accordance with law. We make it clear that the order of eviction cannot be passed on the ground of the failure of the Petitioner to furnish information demanded by the impugned communication.

¶21

4 Subject to above directions, the Petition is disposed of.

¶22

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

¶23

2 of 2

Adil D Karkaria v. the Mumbai Repairs and Reconstruction Board and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adil D Karkaria v. the Mumbai Repairs and Reconstruction Board and 4 Ors.

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

Anthony Magnose Thambiraj Vs Parle Global Technologies Private Limited

M/S Shiv Mangal Developers Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

Shiv Mangal Developer Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Suhas a. Kulkarni Vs the Chairman, the Spices and Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd.

Shri. Sudhakar Narayan Kulkarni Vs the Collector, Solapur and Anr.

Shri. Sudhakar Narayan Kulkarni Vs the Collector, Solapur and Anr.