HARESH DAYARAM THAKUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellant-Haresh Dayaram Thakur and respondent No. 3-Pitambar Dayaram Thakur are brothers. Raj Kumari Pitambar Thakur Respondent No. 4 is wife of respondent No. 3. The dispute raised in the case centres round the flat bearing No. 16/199 at Ramakrishna Nagar, Khar (W), Mumbai, belonging to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Mumbai (for short 'MHADA'). The MHADA had granted lease of the said flat to one N.H. Krishanan, who transferred his right, title and interest thereunder to one Manmeet Singh Chadha under an agreement of transfer dated 7th April, 1986. By the agreement for transfer dated 21-11-1989 the right, title and interest of the flat was purchased by the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 3,45,000/-. The appellant also became a member of the society of flat owners of the building called Melody Co-operative Housing Society of which the flat in question is a part. The appellant had applied to MHADA for regularisation of allotment of the flat in his name. In December 1992 on a routine inspection of the premises the Estate Manager of MHADA reported that the property was in occupation of the appellant and his family members including respondent No. 3 though it stood in the name of N.H. Krishnan, and therefore, they were unauthorised occupants of the flat. On receipt of the report a proceeding was initiated under Section 66(1) of the Maharashtra Housing and Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act'). In pursuance of the order dated 23-4-1997 MHADA evicted all the unauthorised occupants from the flat and sealed the same. In the said order leave was given to the present appellant to establish his claim in respect of the property in light of the deed of transfer dated 21-11-1989 and other documents executed by the allottee in his favour. Subsequently after examining the relevant documents MHADA regularised the allotment of the flat in favour of the appellant by an order under the Act.

(3.) On 19-9-1998 respondent No. 3 filed Writ Petition No. 5072/98 before the Bombay High Court challenging the order of eviction passed by MHADA under Section 66(1) of the Act against him. It was the case of the respondent No. 3 (writ petitioner) that he had also contributed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- for the purpose of purchase of the flat along with his brother, the appellant herein, though the documents stood in the name of the latter. A Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by the order dated 7-10-1998 directing, inter alia, that the competent authority of MHADA would re-examine the claims of the respondent No. 3 as well as the appellant herein and pass a speaking order in accordance with the law. In compliance with the directions of the High Court the competent authority of MHADA passed the order dated 18-12-1998 rejecting the claim of respondent No. 3 and confirming the allotment/regularisation of the flat in the name of the appellant.