A Board-authorized Executive Engineer may initiate eviction proceedings under Section 95A of the MHADA Act.

The petitions concerned redevelopment of Issa Building, a dilapidated building in Mumbai, under Regulation 33(7) of the DCPR 2034.

The owners had obtained the requisite permissions, and approximately 57 of the building’s 83 tenants or occupants had surrendered possession and executed permanent alternate accommodation agreements (PAAAs).

The petitioners, a group of occupants, challenged eviction proceedings initiated under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act).

They contended that the owners had not complied with specified conditions of the NOC, including those concerning PAAAs, area entitlement, corpus fund and a bank guarantee or fixed deposit for rehabilitation construction costs.

They also argued that the Executive Engineer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 95A.

The High Court heard the petitions together and considered both the jurisdictional challenge and the alleged NOC non-compliance.

1. Whether proceedings under Section 95A initiated by the Executive Engineer were without jurisdiction or contrary to the scheme of the MHADA Act.

2. Whether alleged non-compliance with NOC conditions made the Section 95A proceedings premature or illegal, warranting interference under Article 226.

Section 95A of the MHADA Act provides a summary eviction mechanism in specified redevelopment cases where the prescribed consent threshold has been met, an NOC issued, and an occupant refuses to vacate; the NOC holder must make temporary accommodation available or pay rent in lieu.

Sections 16 and 18 establish an administrative structure through which the Board performs its statutory functions, including through its Chief Officer and authorised officers; Section 181 concerns delegation of powers or functions of the Authority and does not govern every internal assignment of Board functions.

Section 95A proceedings are summary in nature and are not intended to determine all disputes concerning redevelopment, provided affected occupants receive notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Applying Radhika George v. MHADA (2012) 5 Mh.L.J. 229, Sayed Anwar Gafoor v. Administrator and Divisional Commissioner (2010 SCC OnLine Bom 225), and the principle in Sahni Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (1994) 5 SCC 346, the Court held that the statutory scheme and its indications may permit an authorised officer to act for the Board; the rule against sub-delegation does not bar action taken under such authority.

NOC conditions may fall due at different stages, and the existence of obligations to be performed later does not, by itself, invalidate Section 95A action.

The Court found that the Chief Officer had specifically authorised the Executive Engineer to initiate Section 95A action, pursuant to an earlier administrative order of the Board; those authorisations had not been challenged.

The Executive Engineer’s role was therefore not an unauthorised assumption of the Board’s power, and Section 181 did not require a separate delegation of the Board’s substantive power for that internal administrative arrangement.

As to the NOC, the Court accepted the authorities’ evidence that the conditions relied on had either been complied with, offered but not accepted, or were due at a later stage—including the rehabilitation-cost deposit, which was required before demolition, and registration of PAAAs before a later commencement-certificate stage.

It also accepted the owners’ undertaking to provide transit rent and corpus fund and register PAAAs on the same terms as for other tenants, and the Advocate General’s assurance that the authorities would enforce the NOC and take action for established non-compliance.

The Court concluded that the asserted outstanding obligations did not, on the material before it, establish a ground to halt the redevelopment or invalidate the proceedings.

It dismissed all the writ petitions, discharged the Rule and made no order as to costs; it also expected the authorities to ensure compliance with the NOC conditions and act upon any breach in accordance with law.