MHADA Executive Engineer can initiate summary evictions to clear occupants for redevelopment, Bombay High Court rules

The petitioners were tenants or occupants of Issa Building, a dilapidated building in Mumbai being redeveloped under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034.

The owners had obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC), and approximately 57 of the building’s 83 tenants or occupants had surrendered possession and executed Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAAs).

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

The Bombay High Court heard the connected petitions together.

Whether proceedings under Section 95A initiated by the Executive Engineer were without jurisdiction under the MHADA Act.

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

Section 95A of the MHADA Act provides a summary eviction mechanism where the statutory requirements for redevelopment are met, including the requisite consent, issuance of an NOC and provision of alternate temporary accommodation or rent in lieu; it is not intended to determine every redevelopment dispute as if in a civil trial.

Sections 16 and 18 identify the authorities and administrative structure through which the Board carries out its statutory functions, including its Chief Officer and authorised officers.

Section 181 concerns delegation of powers exercisable by the Authority and does not displace the Board’s internal administrative arrangements.

The principle delegatus non potest delegare does not prevent an authorised officer from performing functions where the statutory scheme and the authority’s own authorisation permit it.

The Court also considered Radhika George v. MHADA, which recognises the summary character of Section 95A proceedings, and distinguished Sahni Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Javed Abdul Rahim Attar v. MHADA and Jugraj Tejraj and Sons v. Executive Engineer on their facts or issues.

The Court held that the Board operates through the administrative structure established by Sections 16 and 18, and that its Chief Officer is an integral part of that structure.

The Board’s 2022 administrative order assigned Section 95A actions to the Executive Engineer, and the Chief Officer’s order of 1 July 2026 specifically authorised action against the occupants; those orders had not been challenged.

Section 181 did not apply because the case did not involve delegation of the Authority’s powers.

On the NOC challenge, the Court accepted the statutory authorities’ evidence that the relevant obligations had been complied with, offered but not accepted, or were due at a later stage; in particular, demolition had not commenced and the developer had not yet applied for the further NOC required before seeking a plinth-level commencement certificate.

The Court also accepted the owners’ undertaking to provide transit rent and corpus and register PAAAs on the same terms as for other tenants, and the Advocate General’s assurance that the authorities would enforce NOC conditions and act upon any established breach.

It found no jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice or illegality warranting intervention under Article 226, and held that the petitioners could not stall the sanctioned redevelopment.

All connected writ petitions were dismissed, the rule was discharged, and there was no order as to costs; the Court expected the authorities to ensure compliance with the NOC conditions.