LAXMI RAM PAWAR Vs. SITABAI BALU DHOTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision in this appeal, in our opinion, turns upon the answer to the following question: is a trespasser covered by the definition of occupier in Section 2(e)(v) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short, the 1971 Act) and if yes, whether for his eviction from the land or building in a declared slum area, the written permission of the Competent Authority under Section 22(1)(a) of the 1971 Act is mandatorily required.

(2.) The aforesaid question arises in this way. The first respondent--Sitabai Balu Dhotre filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction in respect of a room admeasuring 8 x 10 ft. situate in Survey No. 1001, Wadarwadi bearing Hut No. 12/161/B/P/424, Taluka Haveli, Pune (for short, subject room) against the appellant-Laxmi Ram Pawar and the second respondent--the Executive Engineer, Shivajinagar, Sub Division, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Pune in the Court of 10th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune. The case set up by the first respondent was that the subject room was constructed by her in 1987; she got electricity connection in her name and has been paying taxes to the Pune Municipal Corporation. She claimed that she was having photo pass in her name. According to her, she permitted the appellant being her friend to stay temporarily for two months in the subject room as she (appellant) was not having any shelter to live in. After expiry of two months, the first respondent asked the appellant to vacate the subject room but she requested the first respondent to allow her to stay in that room for some more time as she was arranging for some alternative accommodation but later on, the appellant denied the first respondents right in the subject room necessitating the legal proceedings against her. The first respondent averred that the appellant was neither tenant nor licensee but a trespasser and has no right to remain in possession of the subject room.

(3.) The appellant traversed the first respondents claim and set up the case in the written statement that the subject room was constructed by her in 1987 and she was holding a photo pass for the said room. She denied that she was a trespasser. She set up a plea that subject room was situate in the slum area declared under the 1971 Act and the suit filed by the first respondent was not maintainable without written permission of the Competent Authority in view of the prohibition contained in Section 22(1)(a) of that Act.