RAMRAJ SINH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these two petitioners in these two petitions are tenants of the Housing Board. The competent officer in each case after issuing a show cause notice indicating the breaches of the terms of allotment of tenancies, and hearing the petitioners passed eviction orders. Petitioners filed appeals to the State Government. These appeals were heard by the Deputy Minister and the appeals were then dismissed by the State Government. The petitioners challenge the vires of the provisions of Chapter VA of the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948, which permit eviction after a summary enquiry by a competent officer.

(2.) SECTION 53-A of the said Act authorises the State Government to appoint as competent authority an officer who holds or has held an office no lower in rank than that of a Deputy Collector or an Executive Engineer. Section 53-A enables a competent authority, if satisfied, to evict (a) an authorised occupier if he has (I) not paid rent lawfully due from him in respect of the premised for a period of more than two months or (ii) sublet the whole or any part of the premises, or (iiia) committed or is committing any act contrary to the provisions of Clause (o) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, or (iiib) made or is making material additions or alterations in such premises without the previous written permission of the Board, or (iii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms under which he is authorised to occupy such premises and (b) any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any Board premises, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force by serving a notice in the manner stated therein and ordering him as well as any other person who may be in occupation to vacate the same. Sub-section (1-A) prescribes the procedure and reads as below:-

(3.) IT is said that these provisions are very drastic in nature and provide a summary procedure quite different from that in regular courts. The contention that the distinction made between the premises of the Housing Board and those belonging to private citizens is unreasonable and the discrimination between the Housing Board on the one hand and the citizen, on the other, is in violation of Article 14 of the constitution is not available to the petitioners since this is answered by the Supreme Court in Baburao v. Bombay Housing Board, AIR 1954 SC 153. The contention was made in connection with Section 3-A of this Act which exempts the premises belonging to the Housing Board from the application of the Bombay Rent Act, 1948 holding that there is intelligible differentia between the two classes of premises and the classification is reasonable. This was also assumed in Northern India Caterers Ltd v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1581.