Smt. Purnima Shantilal Dedhia ... vs The Maharashtra Housing And Area ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 468 Bom

JUDGMENT

V.M. Kanade, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondents.

2. The Petitioners are challenging the letter dated 29th March, 2005 which is addressed to the Petitioners and is sent by Deputy Engineer Co-Op. Cell, M.B.R. & R.B. Board. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners purchased property consisting of land and building and said auction sale was confirmed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. In the meantime, tenants sent proposal to the Board Under Section 103B of the MHADA Act. The Petitioners initially sent letter to MHADA authorities and requested them to sent copy of proposal which was sent by the tenants. It is the case of the Petitioners that building does not require any repairs and as such question of acquisition of said building for repairs and re-construction did not arise. In reply to the said representation, the Deputy Engineer, M.B.R. & R.B. Board informed the Petitioners that the proposal was being processed further and that objection for the acquisition which was taken by the Petitioners was pre-mature. In the said letter MHADA has stated that "The tenants occupants of property known as Narmada Niwas No. 30, Parmar Guruji Marg, Parel, Mumbai 12 have applied for acquisition of property under Section 103B of MHADA Act for the purpose its better preservation. The proposal is scrutinized and it is seen that the application prima facie fulfills requirements laid down for acquisition of property under Section 103B MHADA Act and thus the proposal is being processed further." (Emphasis supplied).

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited my attention to the provisions of Section 103B of the MHADA Act and submitted that before proposal was finalized the land lord ought to have been heard. He submitted that observation made by the MHADA that he was prima facie, satisfied that the proposal fulfilled requirements laid down under the act was patently incorrect. Documents were filed by the tenants after 29/03/2005. He submitted that, therefore, MHADA authorities had already arrived at a conclusion before scrutinizing the documents. He submitted that Under Section 93 Sub-clause 5 of S.L.A.O. did not have any authority to cancel proposal which was made by the tenants. He submitted that therefore, the Petitioners did not have opportunity of satisfying the Board that said proposal made by the tenants was liable to be rejected. He further submitted that MHADA may be directed to give hearing to the Petitioners.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that validity of the provisions of said Act had been upheld by the Division Bench of this court. He submitted that this aspect was considered by the Division Bench in para 13 of the said judgment. Division Bench has observed that said provision did not contemplate that before or at the time of scrutinizing proposal, landlord should be heard.

5. In my view, perusal of impugned letter clearly shows that proposal which is made by the tenants Under Section 103B of the said Act is being scrutinized and no final decision has been taken by MHADA. In the light of judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Property Owners' Association v. The State of Maharashtra , question of giving hearing to the Petitioners does not arise at this stage. In my view, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with letter dated 29/03/2005. Writ Petition, in my view, therefore is liable to dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

6. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks leave for extension of interim order which is passed by the court. Request is refused. Request for extension of stay is rejected.