SHARMILA R KOTIAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution takes exception to an order passed by the Chief Officer of the second respondent hereinafter referred to as the "board" vis-a-vis the entitlement of respondent No. 3 as against the petitioner.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 was in occupation of Room No. 8 on third floor of Madhav Building at Parel, Bombay 400 012. On 11-7-1976 respondent No. 3 entered into a leave and licence agreement with the petitioner's husband vis-a-vis the said room whereby she placed the petitioner's husband in occupation of the room. The agreement was to be for a duration of 11 months and was to expire on 10-6-1977. While the agreement was in force on 31-1-1977 the third floor of the building caught fire and all the tenements on the said floor were burnt down. Accommodation had to be provided to the persons displaced and various records had to be prepared. In the record of tenants the name of the third respondent was entered. In relation to temporary accommodation a notice was addressed to the third respondent but was served upon petitioner's husband. An order showing allotment of permanent accommodation in the reconstructed building to respondent No. 3 was passed. The petitioner's husband came on the scene at this stage and made a representation claiming the allotment of alternative accommodation in the reconstructed building to him. The Deputy Chief Officer scheduled a hearing and in the course thereof documents were tendered by the petitioner's husband, the third respondent and also the petitioner. Having gone through all these papers the Deputy Chief Officer on 2-6-1986 upheld the eligibility of petitioner to accommodation in the reconstructed building. The order passed by the Deputy Chief Officer was re-considered by the Chief Officer. His view was that the order had to be reversed. Consistent with this view the order in favour of the petitioner was set aside and substituted by that in favour of the third respondent.

(3.) PETITIONER has taken exception to the order passed by the Chief Officer which order is at Ex. C and is dated 7-10-1986. In support of petitioner's claim reliance is placed upon Ss. 91 (1) and 94 (5) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (Mhada ). To the extent relevant these provisions read as follows:-