DATTARAM S. VICHARE . versus THUKARAM S. VICHARE AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 404 · Decided: 12-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DA TT ARAM S. VICHARE . 
v. 
THUKARAM S. VICHARE AND ORS. 
AUGUST 12, 1999 
B 
(V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Housing: 
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act: Section 66-. 
C Eviction-Appellant allotted premises by the Board under the Act-
Respondent (appellant's real brother) residing in the premises since inception 
of the tenancy-Board aware of the fact of ·respondent's residing in the 
premises since inception-After inspections by the Board appellant alleged 
to have been served a show cause notice for eviction on the ground of sub-
letling-Eviction of the appellant from the premises ordered by the Competent 
D Authority under the Act-Tenancy regularized in favour of the respondent-
Appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority-Eviction order held to he 
illegal-No notice under Section 66 found to be served on appellant-
Appellate order challenged by respondent in writ petition before the High 
Court-Eviction order passed by the Competent Authority held to be justified-
£ 
Appellant presumed to be served in view of the service of notice in 
regularization of tenancy proceedings-Order of the High Court appealed 
against-Held-Eviction order passed against the . appellant is null and 
void-Service of notice is sine qua non/or eviction proceedings-Service of 
notice in regularization of tenancy proceedings cannot be presumed to be 
service in eviction proceedings-No vacancy in respect of tenancy in view 
F of void eviction order-Consequently, order regularizing tenancy in favour 
of the respondent null and void. 
In 1965, the appellant was allotted a one room premises by the Bombay 
Housing and Area Development Board. The said Board is constituted under 
the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act At the time of allotment, 
G as a requiSite condition, the appellant filled and submitted Form 'C' mentioning 
the names of his real brother i.e. tl\e resporidenfand his wife as the persons 
who would be occupying the premises. The said Form 'C' was accepted by tb'e 
Board. The Board officials conducted two inspections of the premises on the 
basis of which it was reported that t.he appellant was not residing in the 
H premises and had sublet the premises to his own brother. In pursuance of 
404 
. 
·, ' 
D.S. VICHARE v. T.S. VICHARE 
405 
the said reports a notice was allegedly served upon the appellant requiring A 
him to show cause why the tenancy in respect of the premises be not 
regularized in favour of the respondent (appellant's brother) who was in 
occupation of the premises. Apparently the appellant did not participate in 
the said proceedings before the Competent Authority. Consequently, the 
Competent Authority ordered eviction of the appellant from the premises and B 
also regularized the tenancy in favour ofthe respondent. 
Aggrieved by the abovesaid order of the Competent Authority, the 
appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority constituted 
under the Act Allowing the appeal, the Appellate Authority held the eviction 
order to be illegal and void on the basis of the fact that no notice under C 
Section 66 of the Act had been served. The said order of the Appellate 
Authority was challenged by the respondent before the High Court in a writ 
petition. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding the Competent 
Authority to be justified in terminating the tenancy of the appellant and 
regularizing it in favour of the respondent. The High Court also presumed 
that the appellant was served notice in eviction proceedings in view of his D 
being served notice in respect of the proceedings for regularization of 
tenancy in favour of the respondent. Hence this appeal. 
The appellant contended that the entire proceedings for his eviction 
and regularization of tenancy in favour of the respondent were illegal and 
void as no notice under Section 66 of the Act was served on him for his E 
eviction. It was also contended that in view of the acceptance of Form 'C' 
submitted by him clearly mentioning the respondent and his wife to be the 
occupants of the said premises, it was not open to the Board to take sub-
letting as a ground of eviction. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD 1. According to the provisions of Section 66 of the Maharashtra 
Housing and Area Development Act, the Competent Authority is empowered 
F 
to pass an order of eviction against a tenant if it is found that the tenant bad 
sub-let the premises allotted to him without previous permission of the G 
Compet

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.