IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1157 OF 2007 Moosa Mohammed Siddik Shaikh ...Petitioner Versus Mumbai Housing & Area Development Board & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.A.N.Maniyar for Petitioner. Mr.Pradeep Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 1, 2008. FEBRUARY 1, 2008. FEBRUARY 1, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the order passed by the Chief Officer dated 7th August 2006 in proceedings No.CO/RR/4375/06. It is not necessary to advert to the chequered history which gave rise to the passing of the said order. 2. Suffice it to observe that the Petitioner claims that he was in possession of premises being room No.K-11, 2nd Floor in Sitaram Building, : 2 : K-Block, Palton Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 when he had received notice to vacate the same on 10th March 1976. The Petitioner handed over possession of the said premises on 27th July 2006 whereafter the Petitioner was offered transit accommodation in transit camp at Kannamwar Nagar, Vikhroli and is presently occupying tenement bearing No.23/1264, Fishermen Colony, Mahim, Mumbai - 400 016. The Petitioner received intimation from the appropriate Authority sometime in January 1998 to take back possession of the original premises which were duly repaired. It is the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner did not take possession of the said premises as water and electricity facility was not provided thereto. 3. The Petitioner had approached this Court by way of Writ Petition in which proceedings, Commissioner was appointed who submitted report that some third party was already occupying the premises offered to the Petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, for the issue regarding vacating the transit camp and taking over : 3 : possession of the premises offered to the Petitioner, several proceedings were resorted to. The present Petition arise as aforesaid against the order passed by the Chief Officer on 7th August 2006. The Chief Officer was called upon to decide the matter afresh in terms of order dated 2nd December 2005 passed by the Appellate Officer remanding the proceedings before the Chief Officer while allowing the Appeal preferred by the Respondent No.3 and dismissing the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner. The operative part of the order plainly indicates the purpose of remanding the matter to the Chief Officer, which reads thus: "ORDER 1. The Appeal No.137 of 2004 of Kum.Aiesha is allowed. 2. The Appeal No.119 of 2004 of Shri.Moosa is dismissed. 3. The order of the Ld.Trial Court, dt.13/6/04 is set aside, except against Shri.Moosa ordering him to pay economic rent from April 1988. Rest of the order is set aside. 4. The Chief Officer is directed to pass a speaking order by hearing both the parties in respect of the documents at Exhibit-‘A’ from pages 93 to 120, mentioned in para No.14 and specially 30 : 4 : years old document filed by the appellant before the trial court at page 273 of the record. 5. In the circumstances, there is not order as to costs. 6. The record of the trial court, be made available to the Chief Officer, for hearing to the parties. 7. The R. & P. be sent to the trial court." 5. It is seen that the Chief Officer was directed to pass a speaking order by giving hearing to both the parties in respect of documents at Exhibit A from pages 93 to 120 mentioned in paragraph 14 of the order, especially those documents which were 30 years old documents filed by the Appellant before the Trial Court at pages 273 of the record. Instead of enquiring into the said aspect of the matter, for which the proceedings were remanded to the Chief Officer, the Chief Officer proceeded to decide the controversy on an entirely different consideration, as can be discerned from the impugned decision. The Chief Officer proceeds to hold that as the Petitioner had failed to take possession of the premises offered to him within the statutory period of one month on : 5 : one pretext or the other, by operation of Section 19(13)(14) of the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976, the Petitioner lost all his rights in respect of the premises as his tenancy came to an end. 6. Suffice it to observe that the Chief Officer has not considered the matter in the context of the remand order at all. Instead, proceeded to decide the issue on specious reasoning that the Petitioner had no right in respect of the property having regard to the provisions of Section 19(13)(14) of the MHADA. That was not the purpose for which the matter was remanded by the Appellate Authority. The Chief Officer, in my opinion, has travelled beyond the scope of the remand order passed by the Appellate Authority. It was not open to the Chief Officer to decide the issue on considerations other than the one referred to by way of remand order dated 21st December 2005 by the Appellate Authority. 7. Counsel for the Petitioner is right in relying on the order passed by the Division Bench : 6 : of this Court dated 15th June 2006 in Writ Petition No.2194 of 2004 where the Petitioner has expressed concern about the remand proceedings before the Chief Officer. The Division Bench observed that as the matter has been remanded to the Chief Officer, the Chief Officer was expected to decide the matter in accordance with law. However, the apprehension of the Petitioner has turned into reality in view of the order passed by the Chief Officer dated 7th August 2006 which is impugned in this Petition which proceeds to decide the matter on entirely different footing than the one for which proceedings were remanded by the Appellate Authority. On this count alone, the order under challenge is set-aside and the matter is relegated before the Chief Officer for deciding the same, keeping in mind the observations of the Appellate Authority in its order dated 2nd May 2005 and no other aspects, unless the issue is such that it goes to the root of the matter involving question of jurisdiction or Authority as such. 8. The parties shall appear before the Chief Officer on 10th March 2008 at 11.00 a.m. on which : 7 : date, the Chief Officer may proceed to hear the parties and pass appropriate orders or assign such other date as may be convenient to him and the parties, while ensuring that the proceedings are finally disposed of by him on or before 21st April 2008. All questions that would arise for consideration in the remand proceedings are left open to be decided on their own merits. 9. Needless to observe that till the proceedings are finally decided, the status-quo as of today with regard to the suit premises shall be maintained by the parties. 10. Petition disposed of on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.