MHADA Executive Engineer may pursue summary tenant evictions for redevelopment when authorised by the Board, Bombay High Court rules

The petitioners, tenants or occupants of Issa Building, challenged proceedings initiated against them under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (“MHADA Act”) in connection with the building’s redevelopment under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034.

They contended that the Executive Engineer lacked authority to initiate the proceedings and that the developers had not complied with conditions in the MHADA No Objection Certificate (NOC), including those concerning permanent alternate accommodation agreements (PAAAs), transit rent, corpus and a bank guarantee or deposit.

The respondents maintained that the Executive Engineer acted under the Chief Officer’s authority and that the relevant NOC obligations were either met, offered, or not yet due.

The High Court heard the connected petitions together because they raised common issues.

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

2. Whether alleged non-compliance with NOC conditions made the Section 95A proceedings premature or illegal, warranting interference by the High Court.

Section 95A of the MHADA Act provides a summary eviction mechanism where the statutory prerequisites for redevelopment are met, including the requisite occupant consent and issuance of an NOC; the NOC holder must make temporary alternate accommodation available or pay rent in lieu, and affected occupants must receive notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Sections 16 and 18 establish an administrative structure through which the Board performs its statutory functions, including through its Chief Officer and officers; not every administrative or executive step requires a separate resolution of the Board.

Section 181 concerns delegation of powers of the Authority and does not displace that administrative structure.

The Court also relied on Radhika George v. MHADA, which held that Section 95A proceedings are summary and are not a forum for a full adjudication of redevelopment disputes, and distinguished Sahni Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation on the statutory scheme involved.

The Court held that the Executive Engineer did not assume jurisdiction unilaterally: a 2022 administrative order directed that Section 95A actions be executed by that officer, and the Chief Officer specifically authorized the action in this case.

Since the Chief Officer is part of the Board’s administrative machinery, the Court found that this arrangement did not amount to an impermissible delegation under Section 181.

On the NOC issue, the Court accepted the authorities’ evidence that relevant obligations had been complied with, offered but not accepted, or were due at a later stage; for example, the 10% rehabilitation-construction deposit was required before demolition, which had not commenced, and PAAAs were required before a later project approval.

The Court also accepted the developers’ 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 established non-compliance would be addressed by the competent authority.

It therefore found no jurisdictional error, denial of natural justice, or illegality.

It held that the Section 95A proceedings were within the statutory framework and that the asserted NOC non-compliance did not, on the record before it, invalidate those proceedings.

All connected writ petitions were dismissed, the Rule was discharged, and there was no order as to costs; the Court expected the authorities to enforce the NOC conditions in letter and spirit.