KUMUD W/O MAHADEORAO SALUNKE versus SHRI PANDURANG NARAYAN GANDHEWAR THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 941 · Decided: 10-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
941
KUMUD W/O MAHADEORAO SALUNKE
v.
SHRI PANDURANG NARAYAN GANDHEWAR THROUGH
LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4873 of 2019)
MAY 10, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order,
1949 – Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-
development) Act, 1971 – s.22 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 –
s.108 – Appellant-landlord sought permission to evict the respondent
– Slum Authority granted the permission – Appeal preferred by the
respondent, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority – After
securing permission from the slum Authority, a civil suit was filed
by the appellant seeking eviction of the respondent – Suit was
dismissed by the trial court – However, regular civil appeal was
allowed by the Appellate Court – Decree passed by the Appellate
Court attained finality – In the meantime, respondent filed writ
petition challenging the permission granted by the Slum Authority
as confirmed by the Appellate Authority – Writ petition was allowed
by the High Court – On appeal, held: The Slum Authority granted
the permission to evict the respondent – In appeal, matter was
dismissed by the Appellate Authority – Thereafter, civil suit seeking
eviction also attained finality – In the circumstances, there was no
reason for the High Court to interfere in its jurisdiction u/Art.227
of the Constitution as the respondent had opportunity at every stage
to present his case and whether the requirements of s.22(4) of the
Act, 1971 stood satisfied or not was a matter which was dealt with
by the Appellate Authority in sufficient detail – Thus, judgment and
order of the Appellate Authority restored – Maharashtra Rent
Control Act, 1989.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In Vidarbha part of the State of Maharashtra,
before the enactment of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1989,
there had to be two rounds of litigation to seek eviction of a tenant.
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 941
941
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
The first round had to be before the Rent Controller seeking
permission to issue a quit notice under Section 108 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882.  If such permission was granted, then only
the landlord could issue a notice of termination of tenancy and
file a civil suit seeking eviction of a tenant.  In the present case
the first round before the Rent Controller was gone into.   Bona
fide need as a ground for eviction may, in a given case, have an
additional facet of comparative hardship and whether the tenant
has any alternative accommodation or not.  In any case, the matter
had attained finality.  The permission was granted by the Rent
Controller and the civil suit was filed only thereafter in which an
objection was taken that the premises being governed by the
provisions of the Act, the requisite permission of the Slum
Authority was mandatory.  [Para 8] [945-C-F]
2. In the proceedings so initiated the Slum Authority granted
that permission.  The matter was carried in appeal and the issue
whether the requirements under Section 22(4) of the Maharashtra
Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act,
1971 stood satisfied or not was also considered by the Appellate
Authority.  It must also be noted that the Civil Suit seeking
eviction also attained finality.  [Para 9] [945-F-G]
3. In the circumstances, the view that weighed with the
High Court was not correct.  The respondent had opportunity at
every stage to present his case and whether the requirements of
Section 22(4) of the Act, 1971 stood satisfied or not was a matter
which was dealt with by the Appellate Authority in sufficient detail.
In the circumstances there was no reason for the High Court to
interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.[Para 10] [945-G-H; 946-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4873
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.06.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition
No. 2199 of 2003.
Dr. A. Rajeev B. Masodkar, Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, Advs. for
the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
Kishor Lambat, M/S. Lambat And Associates, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of Judgment and Order dated 19.06.2014
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
in Writ Petition No.2199 of 2003.
3. The appellant, landlord of the premises in question

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