PARVATIBAI SHANKAR KAMBLE Vs. CONTROLLER OF ACCOMMODATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As can be clearly seen from the previous orders passed by this Court, this is a gross case of illegal usurpation of requisitioned premises, which were under the control of respondent no. 1.

(2.) Today, Mr. Takke, learned AGP has tendered an affidavit of Mr. Devidas Sanduji Bhagure, Under Secretary and Controller of Accommodation, wherein in paragraph 4, the said officer has stated that the possession of the premises in question was taken by respondent no. 3 and his family members, by taking undue advantage of similar initials and the name of the original allottee and pursuant thereto respondent No.3 and his family members continued to remain in illegal possession of the tenement.

(3.) It is not in dispute that an eviction order against respondent no. 3 was passed on 9/1/2008 as also on 6/2/2008 and the final order dtd. 21/4/2008, which were all subject matter of challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1729 of 2008, which came to be dismissed. The Review Petition against the said order was also dismissed. The obvious consequence was that respondent no. 3 ought to have been immediately evicted at such time. However, respondent no. 1 as also the MHADA, remained mute spectators. We have no manner of doubt considering the facts of the present case that respondent no. 3 was occupying the premises, which was under the control of respondent no. 1, in collusion with the concerned officers from the department of Controller of Accommodation, for the reason that the eviction orders had remained only paper orders. This apart, the orders passed by the Court confirming the eviction order had also remained paper orders which were never implemented. Further, what is more disturbing is that as admitted by respondent no. 3, he continued to illegally occupy the premises without paying any rent whatsoever and that too in a prime locality. This cannot happen unless Respondent No.3 was supported by the concerned officers of the department.