JIWAN NATH RAZDAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON or about November 15, 1965, the petitioner was posted as Settlement Officer-cum-Deputy Custodian of Evacuees property in the office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner at Bombay. Respondent No. 4 was an employee of Glaxi Laboratories India Limited at Bombay and was transferred to Delhi in the year 1965. One K. K. Kapoor who is the brother-in-law of respondent No. 4 negotiated with the petitioner on behalf of respondent No. 4 and the petitioner was put in possession of a residential flat bearing No. D 67/650 situate at M. I. G. Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (East), Bombay (hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises") on a monthly compensation of Rs. 250/ -. The said flat was taken on hire-purchase basis by respondent No. 4 from the Maharashtra Housing Board and the period of hire-purchase was to expire on 31-7-1979. According to the petitioner, he had made all the payments to the Maharashtra Housing Board towards the hire purchase agreement whereas it is the case of respondent No. 4 that in fact he had made all the payments. The petitioner contended that sometimes he made payments to one V. K. Sibal, brother-in-law of K. K. Kapoor. He also contended that he had made the final payment on February 22, 1983 thus completing full payments. In the meanwhile, in 1973 the Maharashtra Housing Board had adopted proceedings against the petitioner and respondent No. 4 in which an eviction order was passed against both. In the year 1974, petitioner preferred an appeal against the said eviction order in which he made a statement that he was a care taker of respondent No. 4 in respect of the suit premises. Respondent No. 4 had also preferred an appeal and by a common order dated 17-5-1974 both the appeals were allowed. Thereafter, the competent authority of the Board (the second respondent) issued a show cause notice dated 5-6-1986 to the petitioner under section 66 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act of 1976") as to why eviction proceedings should not be taken against him. On 31-7-1986, the competent authority passed an order of eviction against, the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Officer of the Board (the third respondent) who by his order dated 4-12-1986 dismissed the petitioners appeal. In the meanwhile, on 6-3-1983 petitioner made an application to Maharashtra Housing Board on diverse circulars of the Board from time to time that the premises in question be regularised in his favour.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid eviction orders dated 31-7-1986 of the Competent Authority and dated 4-12-1986 of the Appellate authority, the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was admitted on 7-5-1987 when a direction was given to the Board to consider and proceed with the application of the petitioner regarding regularisation of the suit premises.

(3.) IN support of the petition, Mr. Chinoy submitted that Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "mhada") did not have the necessary jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders. The submission of the learned Counsel is that once the entire amount towards the hire purchase agreement was paid up, MHADA was left with no interest in the suit premises and, therefore, could not have passed the impugned orders thus interfering with the internal dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 4. Mr. Chinoy also questioned the non-action on the part of MHADA in not finalising the application of the petitioner for regularisation of the suit premises and pending final disposal of the said regularisation application passing the eviction orders. He further urged that the impugned orders were biased and the MHADA has acted at the behest of respondent No. 4 and thus both law and equity are in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Chinoy also submitted that regulation Nos. 2 (z) and 21 (4) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Estate, management, Sale ,transfer and Exchange of Tenements) Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Regulations") framed under section 185 of the said Act of 1976 are ultra vires the provisions of section 2 (4) of the said Act and bad in law. Controverting the submissions of Mr. Chinoy, Mr. Shroff appearing on behalf of MHADA and the State Government and Mr. Tulzapurkar appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 canvassed that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 acting for MHADA were within their powers to pass the impugned orders and they have in no way acted outside or beyond the jurisdiction of MHADA. Mr. Tulzapurkar also urged that the petitioner has not only suppressed material facts from the Court but also made several incorrect and false statements in the writ petition on which ground alone he should be non-suited and should not be granted any relief in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. On the point of regularisation of the suit premises in favour of the petitioner, Mr. Shroff and Mr. Tulzapurkar submitted that the petitioner was only a caretaker of the suit premises for respondent No. 4 and was not a tenant and that his application which was for transfer of the suit premises could not have been considered and granted by the Board. Both of them also urged that Regulation Nos. 2 (z) and 21 (4) of the said Regulations are quite consistent with the substantive provisions of law namely section 2 (4) of the said Act of 1976 and the same are neither ultra vires nor bad in law.