[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ganga Appa Mhaskar Through Gpa Holder ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 8 April, 2026
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik, S. M. Modak
2026:BHC-OS:8675-DB
Ingale 2-wp-4683-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4683 OF 2024
Ganga Appa Mhaskar
Through GPA Holder Santosh Appa Mhaskar & ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors. .... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4678 OF 2024
Farukh Ahmed Mohammad Safi Shaikh ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors. .... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4669 OF 2024
Varun Dilip Halde ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors. .... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4671 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3091 OF 2024
Ramchandra Sadashiv Pilankar ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors. .... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4670 OF 2024
Anita Anand Ghume ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors. .... Respondents
1
Ingale 2-wp-4683-24.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4674 OF 2024
Anant Pandurang Teli ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors. .... Respondents
****
Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil a/w Mr.Omkar Chavan, for the petitioners.
Mr. J.G. Aradwad (Reddy) a/w Mr. Abhijit Patil, for respondents
no. 2, 3 & 4.
Smt. Geeta Shastri (through VC), for SRA.
Mr. Kevin Periera i/b Adv. Chinmaya Acharya, for the respondent
no. 6.
Smt. Vrushali Kabre, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4683/24,
WP//4669/24.
Mr. Suraj Gupte, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4678/24.
Mr. Prashant Kamble, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4671/24.
Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4670/24.
Smt. Anupamaa Pawar, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4674/24.
****
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 8th APRIL, 2026
ORAL ORDER (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :
1. The petitioners in these petitions have raised twofold
grievances. The first grievance is that though the petitioners have
been held to be eligible occupants, rent has been paid by the
respondent no.6-developer from the date of the decision of the
eligibility whereas the same should be from the date of demolition.
Ingale 2-wp-4683-24.odt
Learned counsel for respondent no.6-developer submitted that
appropriate rent has been paid to the petitioners. However, the
issue is no more res integra so far as the question from which date
the payment of rent commences to the occupants of the structure
in respect of which they are found to be eligible. Accordingly, the
petitioners are entitled to rent from the date of demolition of the
structure. If the developer has paid the rent from the date of
demolition of the structure, nothing further remains to be done.
However, if the rent has been paid from the date of eligibility, in
that case, we direct the respondent no.6 - developer to pay the
difference in rent from the date of demolition of the subject
structure. The arrears be paid within a period of 4 months from
today. After the arrears are paid, in case there is any dispute as to
the amount, it is open for the petitioners to approach the Special
Cell constituted pursuant to the decision of this Court dated
23/12/2025 in the case of Om Shri Sai SRA Co-operative Housing
Society Vs. State of Maharashtra1.
2. Learned counsel for respondent no. 6-developer
submitted that the Circular No. 153 by which the developer has
1 Decision of this Court dated 23/12/2025 in Writ Petition No.3140 of 2019 and other connected
petitions
Ingale 2-wp-4683-24.odt
been made liable to pay rent from the date of demolition and not
from the date of eligibility is already under challenge in a separate
writ petition filed before this Court. Learned counsel for the
developer fairly stated that there is no stay to the circular in
operation. It is not possible for us to accede to the request of the
developer that these petitions be kept pending till the decision on
the aforesaid writ petition. In fact, this Court in Writ Petition (L)
No. 3219 of 2019 in the case of Smt. Kusum Subhash Baisane Vs.
State of Maharashtra and ors.2 in paragraphs 17 & 18 has observed
thus :
"17. Though the initial cut off date to determine eligible slum dweller
was 1st January, 1995, the same was extended to 1 st January, 2000 vide
Government Resolution dated 16th May, 2015. In the Annexure-II list
which was certified on 14th June, 2010, petitioner was marked as not
eligible. Petitioner's appeal against non-eligibility was allowed by SRA
on 26th November, 2017. Competent authority recorded a clear finding
of fact that petitioner was residing in the demolished structure prior to
1st January, 2000. If this be the position, then considering the fact that
the competent authority had itself taken the view that petitioner was
residing in the demolished structure prior to 1 st January, 2000 eligibility
of the petitioner would relate back to the certified Annexure-II list first
published on 14th June, 2010. If that be so, then on the date of
demolition i.e. 17th November, 2014 petitioner would have to be
construed as an eligible slum dweller.
18. In circular No.153 of SRA dated 6th June, 2015, the procedure to
provide rent to the slum dweller by the developer is provided. It is
stated that the said procedure has been laid down so that the eligible
slum dweller can get the rent without any hurdle from the date of
demolition of the structure till he gets possession of the rehabilitation
tenement. What is of relevance is the date of demolition. If on the date
of demolition the slum dweller is construed to be eligible, then he
2 Decision of this Court dated 13/01/2020 in Writ Petition (L) No. 3219 of 2019.
Ingale 2-wp-4683-24.odt
would be entitled to the transit rent from the date of demolition."
3. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to accede to
the request of the developer to await outcome of the decision in
Writ Petition No. 4804 of 2025.
4. So far as the aspect regarding the deduction of 10% TDS on
the transit rent by respondent no. 6-developer is concerned,
learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of this
Court in Sarfaraz S. Furniturewalla Vs. Afshan Sharfali Ashok
Kumar and ors3. In paragraph 10 of the said decision, it is
observed thus :
"10. The ordinary meaning of rent would be an amount which the
tenant/licensee pays to the landlord/licensor. In the present
proceedings the term used is "transit rent", which is commonly
referred as hardship allowance/rehabilitation allowance/displacement
allowance, which is paid by the developer/landlord to the tenant who
suffers hardship due to dispossession. Hence, in my opinion "transit
rent" is not to be considered as revenue receipt and is not liable to be
taxed, as a result there will be no question of deduction of tax at
source (TDS) from the amount payable by the developer to the
tenant."
5. In such view of the matter, respondent no. 6- developer is not
justified in deducting the TDS from the amount of rent payable to
the petitioners-tenants. If it is the case of respondent no. 6 that
amounts have already been deducted and deposited with the
3 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1231
Ingale 2-wp-4683-24.odt
Income Tax Department, it is for the respondent no.6 to place the
legal position before the Income Tax Department and seek
appropriate reliefs. However, merely because the TDS is deducted
pursuant to the directions of the Income Tax Department, is no
ground to deprive the petitioners the relief claimed in view of law
laid down by this Court in Sarfaraz S. Furniturewalla (supra) . We
therefore direct that the amount which has been deducted towards
TDS be paid over to the petitioners within a period of 4 months
from today.
6. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
