Subsequent slum-area declaration does not retrospectively require permission for pre-existing eviction execution.

The Respondents instituted R.A.E. Suit No. 574 of 2007 against the original tenants and obtained an eviction decree on 24 August 2015. The original Defendant’s appeal was dismissed in 2016. The Respondents thereafter filed Execution Application No. 331 of 2016, and a warrant of possession was issued on 26 August 2024.

During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the larger property, including the suit premises, was declared a “Slum Area” under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“Slum Act”) on 18 December 2018.

The Petitioners, claiming to be judgment-debtors, filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that execution of the eviction decree was barred by Section 22(1)(b) of the Slum Act without prior permission from the Competent Authority. The objection was dismissed by the Executing Court on 27 January 2025 and by the Appellate Bench in Revision Application No. 67 of 2025 on 6 August 2025.

Whether execution of an eviction decree requires prior written permission of the Competent Authority under Section 22(1)(b) of the Slum Act when the execution proceedings were instituted before the suit premises were declared a Slum Area?

Whether the subsequent declaration of the suit premises as a Slum Area renders the previously instituted execution proceedings inexecutable or requires them to be suspended until such permission is obtained?

The Court applied Section 22(1)(a) and (b) of the Slum Act, which prohibits, without prior written permission of the Competent Authority, institution of proceedings for eviction from premises in a Slum Area and execution of a decree or order obtained in proceedings instituted before the statutory commencement, respectively.

The Court held that the requirement of permission must be examined with reference to the date on which the relevant proceedings were instituted; a subsequent declaration of the property as a Slum Area does not retrospectively invalidate or suspend execution proceedings already instituted.

The Court distinguished Gauri Pannalal Prajapati v. Harishankar Dudhnath Yadav , where the factual issue was whether the suit premises fell within the portion of land declared as a Slum Area before execution was filed.

The eviction decree was passed in 2015, the appeal was dismissed in 2016, and the execution application was instituted in 2016—before the property was declared a Slum Area on 18 December 2018.

Since Section 22 uses the expression “institute” and the execution proceedings had already been instituted before the subsequent slum declaration, the Court held that the later declaration could not retrospectively alter the character or validity of those proceedings.

Accordingly, the subsequent declaration did not, by itself, make the eviction decree inexecutable or require prior permission as a condition for continuing execution.

The precedent relied upon by the Petitioners was inapplicable because it involved a disputed question regarding whether the suit premises were situated within the specific portion declared as a Slum Area.

The challenge to the orders dated 27 January 2025 and 6 August 2025 was rejected, and the Writ Petition was dismissed.

At the Petitioners’ request, the interim relief was continued for four weeks from the date of uploading of the judgment, and the matter was directed to be listed on 5 October 2026.