KJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6619 OF 2010 Smt. Vanita Shantaram Mestry ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents ---- Mr.Sachin Gite for the petitioner. Mr. P. G. Lad for the respondent no.2. Mr.Suresh Bhosale AGP for the respondent no.1/State. ---- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J DATE : 25/8/2010 P. C.: 1 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The 2nd respondent initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner and sought possession on the ground that the petitioner is in un- authorised possession of the disputed tenement. The tenement was originally allotted to the 6th respondent for residential use. The case made out is that when the Rent Collector checked the tenement on 3.4.1996, it was found that it was the petitioner who was in possession of the tenement along with his family. On the basis of the report submitted by the Rent Collector, notices were KJ 2 issued to the parties. The petitioner filed a reply in which she admitted that she was in possession but denied that she was in unauthorised possession. The petitioner contended that she has been inducted by the 6th respondent and she has been regularly paying rent to the Maharashtra Housing & Development Authority (MHADA). After considering the reply of the petitioner, the Competent Authority passed an order of eviction which has been confirmed in appeal. 2 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that sufficient time was not available to the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice. He pointed out that the Advocate appointed by the petitioner remained absent before the appellate authority and the appeal has been decided in the absence of the petitioner. He submitted that proper opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the petitioner. 3 I have considered the submissions. It must be noted here that it is the case of the petitioner herself that the 6th respondent KJ 3 inducted her in the suit premises. The said case is made out by the petitioner in the appeal before the appellate authority. It is contended that the 6th respondent executed proper documents and placed the petitioner in possession. In fact, in the grounds of appeal, reliance was placed on the fact that the 6th respondent recorded his no objection for regularisation of possession of the petitioner and that an application for regularisation was made by the petitioner in the year 1993. 4 Thus the admitted position is that the original allottee of the tenement is 6th respondent who, without consent of MHADA, transferred the tenement to the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner had applied for regularisation shows that her possession was un-authorised. Admittedly, till today, her possession has not been regularised by appropriate authority. In the circumstances, the order of eviction has been passed on the ground that the petitioner is un-authorised occupant. It is not possible to find any fault with the impugned order. KJ 4 5 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is on streets along with his family members and therefore, she may be permitted to occupy tenement for a reasonable time. The petitioner is already dis-posessed and therefore, said relief cannot be granted. However, if an application for regularisation is pending, the concerned authority is bound to decide the same in accordance with law. Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for interference. Petition is rejected. The petitioner shall be permitted to take away her belongings from the tenement. (JUDGE)