MHADA Executive Engineer can initiate summary eviction of non-cooperating tenants in approved redevelopment, Bombay High Court rules

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

The owners had obtained an MHADA NOC, and approximately 57 of the building’s 83 occupants had surrendered possession and executed permanent alternate accommodation agreements (PAAAs).

The petitioners, a group of remaining occupants, challenged proceedings under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act), arguing that an Executive Engineer lacked authority to initiate them and that the owners had not complied with NOC conditions concerning PAAAs, transit rent, corpus and a rehabilitation-construction bank guarantee.

The High Court heard the connected petitions together and dismissed them.

Whether the Executive Engineer could be authorized to initiate proceedings under Section 95A, or whether that power could be exercised only by the Board itself.

Whether alleged non-compliance with NOC conditions made the Section 95A proceedings premature or unlawful.

Section 95A of the MHADA Act provides a summary mechanism for eviction in specified redevelopment situations where the statutory prerequisites are met, including the requisite occupant consent and issuance of an NOC; the NOC holder must make temporary alternative accommodation available or pay rent in lieu.

Sections 16 and 18 establish the Act’s administrative structure, identify relevant authorities and provide for the Board’s Chief Officer and staff to carry out its functions.

Section 181 concerns delegation of powers of the Authority and does not displace the Board’s administrative machinery or require every implementation step to be taken by a Board resolution.

In Radhika George v. MHADA, the Court held that Section 95A proceedings are summary and are not a forum for full adjudication of disputes properly raised before civil or co-operative courts.

The Court also applied Sayed Anwar Gafoor v. Administrator and Divisional Commissioner on the role of authorized officers within the MHADA statutory scheme, and distinguished Sahni Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation on statutory delegation.

The Court held that the Chief Officer was an integral part of the Board’s statutory machinery and that the Board had, by administrative order, assigned Section 95A actions to the Executive Engineer.

The Chief Officer had also specifically authorized the action in this case; those authorization orders were not challenged.

The Court therefore found no jurisdictional defect, and held that Section 181 did not require a separate delegation for the Board’s internal allocation of functions.

On the NOC objections, the affidavits indicated that transit rent and corpus had been offered or deposited with MHADA after occupants did not accept them, that the 10% rehabilitation-construction deposit was not yet due because demolition had not commenced, and that the PAAA requirement applied before a later commencement-certificate stage.

The Court accepted the statutory authorities’ position that the relevant conditions either had been addressed or were due at a later stage, and noted the owners’ undertaking to provide rent, corpus and PAAAs on the same terms as for other tenants.

It concluded that the objections did not justify halting the redevelopment through Section 95A proceedings.

Finding no jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice or other illegality warranting relief under Article 226, the Court dismissed all the writ petitions, discharged the rule and made no order as to costs.

It expected MHADA and the Board to enforce the NOC conditions and act on any established breach in accordance with law.