1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5783 OF 2009 Balchandra Timanna Patil ...Petitioner vs. Mrs.Mahadevi Balchandra Patil ...Respondent Mr.Kunal Bhanage for the petitioner Mr.Amit Yadav for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2010 P.C. 1 On 15 th September 2009, notice for final disposal was issued by this Court. The petitioner filed an application before the Competent Authority under the provisions of section 13 A (2) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. By order dated 30 th July 2003, the said application being application no.40 of 1998 was rejected on the ground that the same was not maintainable. The Competent Authority observed that the application premises area is censused slum area and therefore, the petitioner ought to have filed the application before the Deputy Collector (Encroachment) and Competent Authority, Mumbai for seeking permission under section 22 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2 The petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.2239 of 2008 before this Court. On 2 nd April 2008 when the petition came up before this Court, the learned Government Pleader made a statement that a copy of the notification declaring the area as a slum will be made available to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from that day to enable the petitioner to approach the 2 Deputy Collector (Encroachment) for appropriate relief. On accepting the said statement, the Writ Petition was disposed of. 3 Thereafter, a Civil Application was taken out by the petitioner in disposed of Writ Petition. In the said application, reliance was placed on a letter dated 17 th June 2008 issued by the Deputy Collector (Encroachment Removal) to the Advocate for the petitioner stating that the area in question was not declared as a slum area and therefore, there was no question of providing any resolution and/or declaration. While disposing of the said application, by order dated 16th September 2008, this Court observed thus : 4...If the communication received by the applicant from the Deputy Collector supports his case that his application before the Competent Authority under the Rent Act is required to be decided on merits would imply that the order dated 30/7/2003 passed by the Competent Authority will have to be set aside by restoring Application no.40 of 1998 to the file and a further direction to decide the same on merits. The remedy for the applicant would be, therefore, to file a fresh petition challenging the order dated 30/7/2003 or in the alternative he may approach the Competent Authority under the Rent Act and file an application for restoration of Application no. 40 of 1998 so as to decide the same on merits. Admittedly, the order dated 30/7/2003 passed by the Competent Authority has held that Application no.40 of 1998 was not maintainable and on the ground that the application premises area was a censused slum area. (Emphasis added) 4 The Civil Application made by the petitioner was rejected with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition for challenging the order of the Competent Authority dated 30 th July 2003 or to approach the 3 Competent Authority for restoration of the application. 5 Accordingly, the present petition has been filed for challenging the order passed by the Competent Authority. The prayer is for restoration of the said application. 6 The contention of the petitioner is that a notification declaring the area in question as a slum has not been supplied to the petitioner notwithstanding the order dated 2 nd April 2008 but on the contrary, there is a material on record to show that there is no such declaration. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent. 7 Perusal of the order dated 30 th July 2003 passed by the Competent Authority shows that there is no reference therein to any notification under section 4 of the said Act of 1971 declaring the particular area as a slum. As of today, no material could be brought on record to show that the area was a declared slum. Reliance was placed by the petitioner on a letter dated 17 th June 2006 issued by the Deputy Collector (Encroachment Removal) stating that the area in question has not been declared as a slum. In the circumstances, order of Competent Authority summarily rejecting the application will have to be set aside. If the respondent wants to contend that the area is declared as slum, the burden is on them to produce the appropriate notification to prove the said fact. Without there being any evidence in the form of notification/declaration under section 4 of the said Act of 1971, the Competent Authority could not have thrown out the application. 8 The eviction application is of the year 1998. Therefore, the application will have to be decided 4 expeditiously. Considering the fact that the application is very old, all issues arising in the said application will have to be considered and decided together by the Competent Authority. 9 Hence, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order : i) The order dated 30 th July 2003 is quashed and set aside and the Case No.40 of 1998 is restored. ii)The Competent Authority is directed to decide the application afresh as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 30 th June 2010. iii)All contentions of the parties on merits of the application are kept open. iv)Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. JUDGE