1 WP.4634.2010.odt mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4634 OF 2010 Balan Raman Tikkiar ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Manoj S. Chatage for Petitioner Mr. Vishal Kanade i/b. Divya Shah & Asso., for Respondent No.4 Mr. G.D. Utangale i/b. Utangale & Co., for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 18TH MARCH, 2011 ORDER (Per Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J.) 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner has challenged the order of Respondent No.6 dated 6 th February 2010 in his Application No.1158/2009 made before Respondent No.6 in respect of a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of Respondent No.5, which has been executed by Respondent No.4. 3. The Petitioner and his wife resided in one premises being Room No.E/70 in the property which was being redeveloped 2 WP.4634.2010.odt by the Respondent No.4 on behalf of the Respondent No.5 under the Slum Redevelopment Act 1971. 4. The Petitioner claimed that his premises was a residential premises consisting of two rooms, kitchen and a bath area. He also claimed that his wife independently “owned as tenant” a commercial premises which was described in a photo-pass issued by the competent authority to her. In para 4 of the Petition he described this premises thus: “The premises B/70 consists of the residential premises and commercial premises and the same is made of bricks machinery wall and A.C. Sheets shed roofing. Which are situated at B/70 plot bearing No.616(pt) TPS IV Mahim division ......” 5. Upon the redevelopment of the property the Petitioner was given a right to hearing in respect of the premises claimed by him to be in his occupation initially under the notice dated 6th March 2007 issued to him. The Petitioner replied to the notice on 14th March 2007 claiming residential premises in his occupation and a commercial premises in the occupation of his wife and sought to prove the respective occupation of the two premises by two separate sets of documents mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 4 of his reply dated 14th March 2007 marked Exhibit-A to the Petition. 6. The wife of the Petitioner was granted a temporary transit 3 WP.4634.2010.odt accommodation pursuant to the documents in respect of the commercial premises shown to be in her name. 7. The Petitioner was granted an oral hearing on 12 th March 2007. His reply came to be considered. An order thereon came to be passed on 16 th March 2007 by Respondent No.2 under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971 granting the Petitioner Rs.5000/- per month for 22 months to vacate hut No.E/70 forthwith. 8. The Petitioner’s wife accepted the alternate premises. The Petitioner challenged the order of the Respondent No.2. Consequently, his matter was heard by the Respondent No.6. They considered the commercial tenement in the occupation of the wife of the Petitioner, which entitled her to be eligible for an alternate premises being the commercial tenement at serial No.60 in Annexure II issued by the competent authority. Since the records did not reflect the Petitioner’s name as a party in occupation of any other premises in Annexure II in respect of the residential structure separately claimed by the Petitioner, his application came to be rejected for a separate alternate premises which the Petitioner claimed. That application also came to be dismissed on the ground that it was time barred and the slum rehabilitation scheme was almost completed. 4 WP.4634.2010.odt 9. The Petitioner has sought to contend that aside from his wife being in occupation of the commercial structure, he was in occupation of a separate independent residential structure. He was called upon to produce documents to show the two structures. It may be mentioned that he has produced two sets of documents also in his reply to the show cause notice calling him for hearing. The Petitioner’s act in showing two sets of documents is a mischievous exercise. The Petitioner has shown a photo-pass, rent receipts, electricity bill and Shops and Establishment Certificate and a census department’s receipt in respect of the commercial premises standing in the name of his wife. The Petitioner sought to show the old and new ration card, his account with Canara Bank, telephone bill and an electric “meter” in respect of the residential premises. The Petitioner did not show two separate electricity bills for the two independent premises – he showed one electricity bill and one electric “meter” to the competent authority. 10.Before us Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner also produced two sets of documents. The residential premises standing in the name of the Petitioner is E/70 as reflected in his old and new ration cards. His wife inter alia lives with him as a member of his family. The telephone bill is issued at the residential premises E/70. Similarly the electricity bill is issued at the said residential premises. The meter number on the 5 WP.4634.2010.odt electricity bills is C-974316. The telephone bills are in respect of telephone No.4372634. 11.The Petitioner has produced only the documents issued by the competent authority being the photo-pass and the receipt for payment of charges to the Municipality in the name of his wife in respect of the commercial premises. The photo-pass shows the Pitch No.GNMA-643C. Hence on Pitch No.GNMA-643C a hut has been censused. The census certificate shows the premises admeasuring 13ft. X 11 ft being a structure of temporary construction censussed for commercial purpose in the name of the Petitioner’s wife. It does not show the room number. The ration card shows the room being the residential premises in the name of the Petitioner. If both the premises are independent and distinct, they should show separate electricity bills for the electricity used in both of them. The Petitioner has only electricity bills bearing the aforesaid meter number at room No.E/70. The Petitioner has not shown separate electricity bills or even a separate electric meter for the commercial premises standing in the name of his wife. 12.Though the election identity card was never relied upon by the Petitioner before the competent authority in respect of his residential premises, he has sought to show the said card in respect of the residential premises. The card shows number G-71. It has never been the case of the Petitioner that his 6 WP.4634.2010.odt residential premises bears number G-71. It is common knowledge that G stands for ground floor rooms in election identity cards issued by the Election Commission of India. 13.The Petitioner has not shown the competent authority or this Court documents evidencing two separate and independent premises, in the names of the Petitioner and his wife which will entitle the Petitioner and his wife to obtain two separate independent alternate accommodations in the newly constructed building under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. 14.No case for interference with the order dated 6 th February 2010 of Respondent No.6 is made out. 15.Hence the Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. (Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)