HARISHCHANDRA MAHADEO MINSTRY Vs. V V AFZALPURKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition seeks to challenge an order of eviction passed by the Competent Authority under section 66 (1) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. The premises in question is a tenement bearing No. 25/342 in Cuffe Parade, Colaba Transit Camp. The same was allotted to the petitioner in January 1984 for residential purpose since the tenement which was in his occupation required structural repairs.

(2.) ON 5th December, 1986 the Competent Authority (III) appointed under the aforesaid Act issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be evicted. The grounds on which the petitioner was sought to be evicted was that he was running an unauthorised vide business and was also storing cold drinks in front of the said premises. In response to the said notice the petitioner appeared before the Competent Authority through an Advocate. After the necessary evidence was recorded, the Competent Authority by its judgment and order dated 22nd July, 1987 passed a final order of eviction against the petitioner calling upon him to vacate the suit premises within seven days from the date of the service of the said order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 52 of 1987 before the Appellate Officer. By order dated 14th September, 1987 the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner was thereafter evicted from the premises on 15th September, 1987. The petitioner, however, filed in this Court Writ Petition No. 4696 of 1987. By an order dated 30th September 1987 this Court recorded the undertaking given by the petitioner that he as also the members of his family would not use the said premises for screening video shows. The Court directed the respondents to restore possession of the premises to the petitioner and directed the re-hearing of the appeal.

(3.) THE appeal was thereafter re-heard and by the impugned judgment and order dated 11th April 1988 the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Consequently, the order of eviction was confirmed. Taking exception to the above orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.