Facts
This case is between the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and unauthorized occupants of public premises. The case pertains to the eviction of these occupants, which has been ongoing for over a decade. The respondents have repeatedly contested the jurisdiction of the Inquiry Officer, leading to the case being brought before the High Court and Supreme Court multiple times. The Inquiry Officer will need to resume proceedings from the inquiry stage if the judgment terminates the third round of litigation.
The respondents have argued that the High Court’s approach serves justice and secures the precious right to life of the respondents by narrowing down the controversy so that the proceedings could be taken to their logical conclusion as early as possible. However, the appellants argue that the learned Judge took upon himself the burden of framing points for determination, and has nullified binding decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court and thrown legal principles asunder, by acting entirely in excess of jurisdiction.
Lastly, the judgment goes over the basic facts of the case, including the respondents’ initial allotment of the premises in the 1960s owing to their employment with the appellants. Eviction proceedings were initiated against the respondents in 2007, which have continued till now.
Main points
Eviction should be done adherence to natural justice principles in the absence of regulations being framed under section 105H of the Act
34. We hold that even in the absence of regulations being framed under section 105H of the Act, the proceedings for eviction can be continued by the Inquiry Officer by adhering to principles of natural justice. The said provision cannot be construed as placing an embargo on the Inquiry Officer to proceed until regulations were framed. Much of the utility in ensuring that public premises are made free of unauthorised occupants would be lost on such technical pleas based raised and examined on a provision of law which is not imperative in terms. All that is required, as held above, is adherence to natural justice principles wherever applicable.
35. The impugned order entertaining writ petitions which were not maintainable in the form they were presented did not warrant the High Court to exercise jurisdiction by framing points for determination by the Inquiry Officer. For the foregoing reasons, the same is indefensible; it has to be and is, accordingly, set aside. The civil appeals stand allowed. The Inquiry Officer is directed to allow both parties to lead evidence and raise whatever points are available in defence, except to the extent determined by judicial orders previously. Such officer would proceed to independently notice contentions and issues arising for his decision on the basis of evidence led and the defence raised by the respondents, and decide the claims in consonance with principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer is encouraged to proceed with expedition.
Party
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai And Others V. Vivek V. Gawde Etc. Etc., – Civil Appeal Nos. Of 2024 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 19602-19619 of 2022] – 2024 INSC 985
