“Can’t Be Party To A Widow Being Thrown Out Of Her House After 50 Years, Where Is The Justice?”: Bombay High Court

The division bench of Justices GS Patel and SG Dige noted that on one hand MHADA had a policy to temporarily accommodate even trespassers but in the present case they were insisting on reserving their rights to evict an old woman, lawfully living in the premises.

“We have to ask: where is the justice in such an approach? If we were to accept MHADA’s stand, we would be lending authority to a manifest injustice,” the bench observed.

The petitioner occupying a 160 sq feet room In Kalachowki, Mumbai approached the High Court seeking protection from eviction by MHADA. She had made several representations, the last one being on December 10, 2019 but received no response.

Represented by Advocate Harshal Mirashi, she contended that the original tenant in 1960 was one Raghunath Chavan who transferred the flat in her husband’s uncle’s name over thirty years ago. While she was occupying the premises since her marriage in 1984, in 1994, the uncle issued an affidavit and indemnity for the flat in favour of her husband, Kishan Yewale. MHADA had also recorded the couple’s possession in the flat.

Her husband then filed two applications for transfer of flat in his name, but MHADA said they were short of certain documents. Another application was filed by her in 2019 but no response was received.

MHADA’s official response was that they would consider the application.

However, the court wondered how MHADA was inactive for 40-50 years and now wanted to reserve its right to evict the poor woman from a room she was occupying for nearly half a century.

“To allow this would be surely inequitable and unjust…All that we have heard MHADA saying is it will exercise some sort of discretion and may now evict and throw out on the street a lady who has lived in the premises for nearly half a century. We refuse to allow ourselves to be a party to any such executive or administrative action,” the bench said.

It added that MHADA had failed to show how the woman’s actions were illegal. Noting MHADA’s policy of giving permanent alternate accommodation to even trespassers.

“So on the one hand, MHADA rewards clear illegalities like trespass, but on the other wants to pursue eviction against bona fide occupiers whose possession is noted even on MHADA records and against whom MHADA has taken no action for 50 years,” the court said.

It warned authorities like MHADA that next time if they were found acting against citizens in such an unreasonable manner, the quantity of fine would reflect the extent of the court’s dissatisfaction.

Finally, the court directed MHADA to forthwith update and amend its records to show Shashikala Kishan Yewale as the lawful tenant/occupant.