MHADA Executive Engineers may initiate summary eviction of non-cooperating tenants in redevelopment, Bombay High Court rules

Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, the owners of Issa Building, undertook redevelopment under Regulation 33(7) of the DCPR 2034.

Of the building’s 83 occupants, approximately 57 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), contending that the Executive Engineer lacked authority to initiate them and that the owners had not complied with conditions in the No Objection Certificate (NOC), including requirements concerning PAAAs, transit accommodation, corpus and a rehabilitation-construction-cost deposit.

The High Court heard the connected petitions together.

Whether the Executive Engineer was authorised under the MHADA Act to initiate proceedings under Section 95A, or whether that power could be exercised only by the Board.

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

Section 95A of the MHADA Act provides a summary eviction mechanism where the statutory prerequisites for redevelopment are met, including the prescribed occupant consent and issuance of an NOC; it also requires the NOC holder to provide temporary alternate accommodation or rent in lieu.

Sections 16 and 18 establish the Act’s administrative structure, including the role of Board Chief Officers in carrying out the Act’s functions.

Section 181 concerns delegation of powers or functions of the Authority and does not, by itself, require every Board function performed through its officers to be treated as a fresh delegation.

Radhika George v. MHADA, (2012) 5 Mh.L.J. 229, recognises that Section 95A proceedings are summary and are not a forum for full adjudication of redevelopment disputes.

Sayed Anwar Gafoor v. Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 225, supports the exercise of statutory functions through authorised officers within the MHADA structure.

The Court distinguished Sahni Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, (1994) 5 SCC 346, and Javed Abdul Rahim Attar v. MHADA, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2759, on their facts and statutory context.

It also relied on Vasant Kheraj Bhanushali v. Goregaon Siddharth Nagar Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Ltd., 2011 (3) Mh.L.J. 433, concerning the effect of occupants’ redevelopment consents.

The Court held that the Board acts through the administrative structure established by Sections 16 and 18, and that the Chief Officer had authorised the Executive Engineer to act under Section 95A; the relevant administrative orders were not challenged.

Section 181 did not bar that arrangement because the case did not involve delegation of the Authority’s powers.

On the NOC conditions, the Court accepted the authorities’ evidence that the conditions applied at different stages: transit rent and corpus had been offered or deposited where occupants declined them; the 10% rehabilitation-construction-cost deposit was due before demolition, which had not begun; and the PAAA requirement applied before the later application for the NOC needed for a plinth-level commencement certificate.

The Court therefore found no present breach that invalidated the Section 95A action, accepted the owners’ undertaking to provide rent, corpus and PAAAs on the same terms as for other occupants, and noted the authorities’ undertaking to act on any established NOC breach.

It found no jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice or illegality warranting relief under Article 226, and dismissed all the writ petitions.

Rule was discharged, with no order as to costs; the Court expected the authorities to enforce the NOC conditions in letter and spirit.