[Maharashtra Rent Control Act] Govt Allottee Will Qualify As Deemed Tenant Only On Legal Possession Of Requisitioned Premises: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has observed that a Government allottee who does not hold a 'legal occupation or possession' of a property under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 cannot be considered as a 'deemed tenant' under Section 27 of the Act.Section 27 of the Rent Control Act provides for the State Government or a Government allottee to become a deemed tenant as on 7 December 1996. If an individual is a Government allottee under Section 7(2)(b), then, by virtue of the provisions of Section 27, they shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Rent Control Act or in any other law, or in any contract, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court passed on or after the 11th June 1996, ог in any order of eviction issued by the Competent Authority under the Requisition Act, be deemed to have become a tenant. Section 7(2)(b) provides that, in relation to any requisitioned premises which were allotted by the State Government for residential purpose to any person, such person or their legal heir would be a Government allottee if such person or a legal heir was in occupation or possession of such premises for their residence on 7 December 1996.A division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni & Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla was considering the petitioner's plea to handover vacant and peaceful possession of subject property/flat to him. The petitioner's father was the owner of a building in which the subject flat is situated. In 1982, the State authorities had requisitioned the said flat and allotted it to one B.M. Ghatwai (Original Respondent No. 3) for his residence. In 1990, Original Respondent No.3 retired from the service of the State government. In 1995, a show cause notice under the Maharashtra Land Requisition Act 1948 was issued to the Original respondent no. 3. He was called upon to show cause why he should not vacate the flat in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Grahak Sanstha Manch & Ors (1994), where is held that there cannot be an indefinite requisition of the premises under the Requisition Act.Subsequently, in March 1996, the Controller of Accommodation (respondent No.2) passed an eviction order, directing the Original respondent no. 3 to handover the possession of the flat. It was stated that as the flat was under requisition for about 13 years, it was necessary to release the same from requisition at the earliest. Aftera series of developments, the case reached the Supreme Court. The Apex Court remanded the matter to the High Court.The petitioner submitted that Section 7 and Section 27 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999, indicate that those persons against whom there is no eviction Order prior to 11 June 1996, are deemed to have become tenants. He contended that therefore Original Respondent No.3 cannot be considered as a deemed tenant under the Act. Even the State authorities submitted that as the eviction order against Original respondent no. 3 was issued before 11 June 1996, he is not deemed to be a protected tenant of the landlord.The High Court relied on the case of Maheshchandra Trikamji Gajjar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (2012), where the Supreme Court observed that the continued occupation or possession of a property without any right would not confer an occupant status on a Government allottee merely on account of occupation or possession of requisitioned premises even after retirement. It remarked “In the judgments referred to above, it is held that 'occupation' or 'possession' in Section 7(2)(b) would mean legal occupation or possession and if a person has retired from the service of the Government before 7th December 1996 and an eviction order has been passed against him/her, before 7th December 1996, then such a person cannot be considered to be in 'occupation' or 'possession' under Section 7(2)(b).”Here, the Court noted that he retired from Government service in July 1990 and that eviction order was passed against him in March 1996, and therefore, he was not in legal occupation or possession of the subject flat.The Court observed that the original respondent no. 3 was not in legal occupation or possession of the flat as on 7 December 1996 and thus, was not a government allottee under Section 7(2)(b) of the Rent Act. It held that the original respondent no. 3 was not a deemed tenant under Section 27 of the Rent Act.The Court directed the legal heirs of the original respondent no. 3 to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the subject flat to the petitioner. Case title: Cyril Ribeiro vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors (Writ Petition No.3650 Of 1988)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 160Click Here To Read/Download Order

[Maharashtra Rent Control Act] Govt Allottee Will Qualify As Deemed Tenant Only On Legal Possession Of Requisitioned Premises: Bombay HC

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags