DATTARAM S VICHARE Vs. THUKARAM S VICHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was allotted a one-room premises, being tenement No. 16/1097, situated at Abhuyadaya Nagar, Bombay in the year 1965 by the Bombay Housing and Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), established and constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). At the time of allotment, the appellant was required to fill and submit Form 'C', indicating therein, the names of persons who would be occupying the premises. The appellant, in compliance thereof, submitted Form 'C', wherein he indicated that respondent-Thukaram S. Vichare, who is his own real brother and his wife, as the persons forming part of his family, would be residing in the said premises. This Form 'C', submitted by the appellant, was accepted by the Board.

(2.) It appears that the officers of the Board inspected the premises and in their Inspection Reports dated 13-11-85 and 23-12-86, it was reported that the appellant was not residing in the premises and he has sublet the premises to his own brother. In pursuance of the said reports, a notice dated 15-10-86 was alleged to have been served on the appellant wherein the appellant was required to show cause why the tenancy in respect of the premises in dispute be not regularized in favour of his brother, namely Shri Thukaram S. Vichare who was in occupation of the premises. It appears that the appellant did not participate in the said proceedings before the Competent Authority. Consequently, the Competent Authority, on 20th March, 1987, ordered the eviction of the appellant from the premises and regularized the tenancy in favour of respondent-Shri Thukaram S. Vichare.

(3.) The appellant, aggrieved against the order of the Competent Authority preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority constituted under the Act. The Appellate Authority found that no notice under Section 66 of the Act having been served on the appellant-tenant, the order for his eviction was illegal and void. Consequently, the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the Appellate Order dated 5-1-89. The High Court took the view that the appellant having sublet the premises to the respondent, the Competent Authority was justified in terminating the tenancy of the appellant and settling the tenancy in favour of the respondent. The High Court also was of the view that since the appellant was served with the notice in the proceeding for regularizing the tenancy in favour of the respondent, the service of notice in respect of proceedings for his eviction has to be presumed. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent. It is against the aforesaid judgment the appellant is in appeal before us.