Pravinbhai Ratanji Lad and Ors. v. The Office of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Anr.

1. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.1985 passed by the Maharashtra Slum Area Tribunal, Mumbai (for short “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No.26 of 1984 after 34 years after the passing of the said judgment / order. There are three Petitioners who have filed the present Petition namely; (i) Pravinbhai Ratanji Lad – resident of Jogeshwari, Mumbai,

(ii) Kaushik Dalpatbhai Mistry – resident of Malad, Mumbai and (iii)

Mayank D. Thakkar, resident of Kandivali, Mumbai. The Writ Petition is verified by the three Petitioners whose ages are given as 59 years, 43 years and 54 years. Prima facie, it is seen that at the time of the 1 of 11 passing of the impugned order, age of the Petitioners were 25 years, 9 years and 20 years.

2. The Averments made in the Petition are to the effect that Petitioner (and not Petitioners) was the tenant of commercial office in the subject property mentioned in the impugned order dated 29.03.1985 namely Survey No.118, CTS No.442 Pahadi Village. Respondent No.1 is the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Respondent No.2 is one Mr. K.P. Shah whose address is shown as C/o M/s. Krishna Metal Works, I.B. Patel Road who was Appellant before the Tribunal in the proceedings wherein the impugned order was passed. Though it is averred that Petitioner is challenging the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, nexus of the Petitioner with respect to any substantive legal or juridical right in the subject property has not been averred in the Petition, save and except to state that Petitioner was the tenant of a commercial office in the subject property. No documentary evidence or supporting documents have been annexed by the Petitioners in this respect. Immediately thereafter it is averred that Petitioners are challenging the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Principal ground of challenge as can be gathered on reading contents of paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the Petition is that Respondent No.2 was not given an opportunity of hearing and survey of a vast property was done without application of mind before 2 of 11 declaring the subject property alongwith various other properties declared a slum in the year 1978. In effect declaration of Slum of a larger property is sought to be challenged by Petitioners who were licencees / lessees of the tenant of the building on CTS No. 442 in the year 1984. Save and except such pleadings nexus is not supported by any supporting documents.

3. Ms. Iyer, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners would submit that though averments are made in the Petition, the Petition needs to be considered in view of the Affidavit-in-Reply now filed by the Respondent No.2.

4. However, before I advert to any of the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, I would like to be satisfied on the issue of locus, maintainability and also delay in filing the present Writ Petition.

5. It is seen that admittedly, the subject property ( infact a larger property) was declared as slum in the year 1978 and Appeal was filed against the said declaration by Respondent No.2 in the year

1984. Averments made in paragraph No.15 of the Petition are to the effect that the Petitioners were tenants and Respondent No.2 was their landlord and there were various Suits / proceedings pending between the parties. Next it is stated that Petitioners were ignorant of law and their rights, that they were engaged and engrossed in the litigation 3 of 11 with Respondent No.2 and were also unaware of the Appeal filed by Respondent No.2 against the declaration of the subject property as slum which resultantly determined the impugned order. It is averred that because of ignorance of law and oblivion to the impugned order, Petitioners did not institute this Petition on an earlier date and Petitioners were so engrossed in the fight for their property that they were unaware of the impugned order. This is the reason for the delay. It is stated that Petitioners now becoming aware of the impugned order were forced to evict from their premises after nearly 2.[5] decades for which they have produced some Tenancy receipts and are therefore aggrieved without any alternate rehabilitation / compensation / package and hence the present Writ Petition is filed.

6. Prima facie, at the outset, I am not at all convinced with the explanation given by the Petitioners for the delay in filing the present Writ Petition. Whatever may be the rights of the Petitioners to be maintained by the present Petition, ignorance of law can never be an excuse especially when it is the Petitioner's own case that they were engrossed in litigation with the Respondent No.2 all this while. Ms. Iyer has failed to answer the question for delay despite having been repeatedly asked by the Court. The only answer that she has reiterated is to look into the Affidavit-in-Reply of the Respondent to consider the case of the Petitioners, but has refrained from answering the question 4 of 11 on delay.

7. Apart from the submissions mentioned in paragraph No.15 of the Petition on the aspect of delay and laches there is no other explanation whatsoever. The averments made in paragraph No.15 are clearly to the effect that there were ongoing disputes and litigation in Courts between the landlord and the tenant which have been cursorily mentioned in the paragraph under reference. Even though the said averments may be true, still it does not explain why the Petition has been filed after a lapse of 34 years to challenge the declaration. All that is stated is ignorance of law and unawareness of what rights to fight for against the declaration of the subject property as slum under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short “the said Act”). It is clearly seen that Petitioners may be tenants of a lessee though save and except such averments made in paragraph No.15 there is no other documentary evidence produced whatsoever. Petitioners have sought alternate rehabilitation and compensation for their eviction by virtue of challenging the impugned order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the Appeal filed by Respondent No.2 challenging the declaration of the subject property as slum in the year 1978. In effect this means that Petitioners who are alleged tenants of Respondent No.2 - landlord in the industrial estate are aggrieved with the notification declaring the 5 of 11 subject property as slum. It needs to be clarified here that by virtue of the said notification an area of approximately 6700 square meters was declared as slum in the year 1978. It is also averred in the Petition that there are various orders passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in favour of the Municipal Corporation for demolition of the structures which stood on the subject property and eviction of the occupants / trespassers therein but none of these orders are produced.

8. In view of the above observations and findings on delay, I am not convinced at all to entertain this Petition after 34 years. The Petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

9. Next is the question of locus of the Petitioners to maintain the challenge to the impugned order. Admittedly, it is the Petitioners case that substantive Appeal was filed by Respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. Further case of Petitioners is that the subject property was declared as a slum in the year 1978. It is also averred by Petitioners that the Respondent No.2 filed various proceedings against Petitioners seeking their eviction from the unit / premises occupied by them as tenant in various Court. It is further averred that Bombay City Civil Court has passed various orders in favour of the Municipal Corporation to demolish the structure standing on the slum land and evict the occupants / trespassers therein. It is clearly mentioned by Petitioners that they were engrossed in litigation with the Respondent 6 of 11 No.2 all throughout. The outcome of the said litigation, finality of the same is not placed on record. It is left at that only. This itself clearly shows that though Petitioners may have been a tenant of Respondent No.2 (landlord) they were clearly aware about their legal rights. All this derivates and concludes into one clear admissible fact and that is Petitioners at no point of time were the legal and juridical owners of the subject property or any property which was declared as a slum in the year 1978. Petitioners admittedly were not a party before the Tribunal which passed the impugned order. Hence, in view of the above observations and findings, Petitioners have no locus whatsoever to maintain the present Petition. Thus, Petition deserves to be dismissed in limine on this ground also.

10. Further perusal of grounds in the Petition reveal that challenge to the declaration of the subject land as slum which has been rejected by the Tribunal vide the impugned order is by a reasoned order. It is Petitioners’ case that tenants have occupied their unit for more than two decades and hence they ought to be rehabilitated or compensated in the alternative. Whether such a substantive right raised by Petitioners in a Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be decided by the Court is the question before me. In the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, such a substantive right cannot be 7 of 11 decided. Needless to state that Petitioners are at liberty to approach the Competent Authority under any law / statute which may enure to the benefit of the Petitioners and file an appropriate proceeding before the said Competent Authority if so available. What is in challenge before the Court today is the impugned order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the Appeal in respect of challenge by Respondent No.2 to the declaration / notification of the larger property as slum.

11. Respondent No.2 has filed his Affidavit-in-reply dated 04.01.2023. I have perused the same. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition, as per the direction of the Supreme Court the Petitioners and other obstructionists handed over vacant and peaceful possession of their structures to the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay on or about 31.07.2016. It is further pertinent to note that the structures of the Petitioners and all other obstructionists were demolished in the year 2016 itself. Thus, the order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Supreme Court attained finality and therefore it is stated that the present challenge to the notification of declaration is not maintainable. That apart, perusal of the Affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent No.2 reveals that Petitioners claimed tenancy from one Taraprasad Mishra. The said alleged tenant challenged the order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Suit No.1173 of 1971 8 of 11 wherein the decree dated 15.04.1997 was upheld by the Supreme Court and the said Taraprasad Mishra failed to establish his claim as tenant. The Affidavit-in-reply of Respondent No.2 gives the entire details of the legal proceedings, which have been conveniently suppressed by the Petitioners herein. I need not delineate any further since reading of paragraph Nos.[1] to 4 of the said Affidavit would clearly establish not only suppression on part of the Petitioners, but also making incorrect submissions in the Petition itself.

12. The orders / decrees passed by the Bombay City Civil Court wherein the name of the Petitioner No.1 figures prominently are all appended to the Affidavit-in-reply of Respondent No.2.