High Court Dismisses Tenants’ Challenge to MHADA Eviction Under Section 95A

The fifteen tenants residing in an old non-cessed building known as Irani Chawl were the petitioners. The owner of the property also held title to a cessed structure on the same plot of land. Both buildings were approved for redevelopment under one composite project under Regulation 33(7) after NOCs were granted by MHADA dated 6.6.2015 and 13.12.2021. The plans were approved by the Municipal Corporation, an IOD was granted on 4.5.2022, and a commencement certificate was granted on 25.5.2022. The new rehabilitation building has completed construction and is ready to be occupied after the cores of the registered building are provided with an occupation certificate.

It was alleged that MHADA lacked jurisdiction under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 and that they would have an equal carpet area which was contravened when the tenants of the cessed building were given tenements of 450 sq ft and the petitioners were provided 405 sq ft of carpet area. The developer filed a complaint with MHADA for action under Section 95A, leading to an eviction order (the “Impugned Order”) dated 10.9.2024 of the Designated Officer. The petitioners filed the present writ petition on 19.9.2024, seeking to have the Impugned Order quashed and to compel emit equal carpet area.

Issue Raised: Whether MHADA’s Designated Officer had jurisdiction under Section 95A of the MHAD Act to order summary eviction of tenants from a non-cessed building forming part of a consolidated redevelopment project, and whether such tenants were entitled in law to claim parity in carpet area with tenants of the adjoining cessed building

Ruling of the Court:  The Court denied the petition and upheld the eviction order. It pointed out that the two NOCs from MHADA dated 6 June 2015 and 13 December 2021 expressly covered the entire property, both cessed as well as non-cessed constructions. These petitioners did not challenge the approvals at any prior stage and assented to the consolidating redevelopment scheme. The Court stated the term “building or land” found in Section 95A must be read broadly, granting authority to MHADA to issue summary evacuation orders for any premises that make up part of a notified redevelopment project. As the petitioners were obstructing the execution of a scheme that had been approved, MHADA’s exercise of jurisdiction was appropriate and valid.

The Bench stated that, regarding carpet area, no statutory right exists giving non-cessed tenants any right to a carpet area aligned to that provided to cessed tenants. Regulation 33(7) sets a minimum area for rehabilitation at a size of 27.88 sq.m. (300 sq.ft) and to be offered rehabilitation at a larger size is a policy or contractual decision as opposed to an entitlement that is enforceable by law. The petitioners were already being offered 405 sq.ft, nearly double from their existing area of 162-170 sq.ft., and their demand for being offered 450 sq.ft had no basis in law. Finding no merit in either the jurisdictional challenge or the claim for parity, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

The writ petition was dismissed. No costs were awarded. The petitioners were granted four weeks to vacate their respective tenements voluntarily, failing which the authorities were permitted to take steps in accordance with law.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below