S KUMARAN Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY THE ASSISTANT HOUSING COMMISSIONER MAHARASHTRA HOUSING BOARD BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order of the Competent Authority, being the Assistant Housing Commissioner, South Bombay, dated September 13, 1963, made under Section 53-A of the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948, directing the petitioner to vacate tenement No. 28/991 situated at Tilak Nagar, Chembur, which was then being occupied by the petitioner as a tenant and the appellate order dated February 10, 1966, made by the State Government confirming the above order of eviction.

(2.) THE facts which require to be noticed are as follows: The petitioner was a tenant of the Housing Board in respect of the above premises from 1954 and was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 28,55. His case is that he got married in 1958 and he had been continuously residing in the tenement. He was served with a show-cause notice dated February 23, 1963, by the Competent Authority whereby he was informed that- (1) he had sublet without the permission of the Housing Board the whole or part of the premises; and (2) he had accommodated persons and he himself was not staying in the tenement. In pursuance of the provisions in Subsection (1) (a) of Section 53-A of the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948, he was called upon to tender an explanation and produce evidence, if any, and show cause within 14 days from the date of service of the notice as to why an order of eviction on the above two grounds should not be made against him. The petitioner by his reply dated April 15, 1963, stated that he was surprised about the two grounds mentioned in the above show-cause notice and stated that the facts mentioned were totally wrong. He further stated that it should be noted that no one except those authorised by the Housing Board were staying with the petitioner in the tenement and he himself was occupying the premises. He submitted that the statements made would meet with the requirements.

(3.) NOTHING further transpired and the above impugned order dated September 13, 1963, was passed against the petitioner directing him to vacate the tenement. The respondent's case is that the order made in September 1963 was pasted on the tenement. The petitioners case is that the order was never served on the petitioner and ultimately, an order dated March 5, 1965, was pasted on the tenement stating that the petitioner had not vacated the tenement in spite o? Competent Authority's eviction order having been served on him. He was informed that vacant possession of the premises would be taken by execution of warrant of possession unless he handed over the same forthwith to a representative of the Housing Board. By further correspondence the petitioner stated that he had never been served with the above order of eviction and time should be given to him for filing an appeal. He was informed that the eviction order was served on him on September 22, 1963. The petitioner then filed an appeal on March 8, 1965, to the State Government under Section 53-C of the Act. By the appellate order dated February 10, 1966, on behalf of the State Government, it was recited that it had called for a report from the Competent Authority and upon the consideration of the contents of the report after hearing the petitioner, it had formed an opinion that the eviction order was fit and proper on the ground that the petitioner was not found to be staying in the tenement with his family and had accommodated number of unauthorised persons all the. time in the tenement and the petitioner's case that he was residing in the tenement with his wife and son was not correct. The order of eviction was confirmed.