The Bombay High Court has clarified that a government allottee can only be treated as a deemed tenant under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, if they hold legal occupation or possession of the requisitioned premises as of 7 December 1996. The ruling came in the case of Cyril Ribeiro vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors (Writ Petition No. 3650 of 1988), where the petitioner sought possession of a flat that had remained under requisition for decades.
The division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed,
"Occupation or possession in Section 7(2)(b) would mean legal occupation or possession. If a person has retired from government service before 7 December 1996 and an eviction order has been passed against them before this date, they cannot be considered to be in occupation or possession under this provision."
Read Also:-Bombay High Court Clarifies: Only Triple Talaq Banned, Talaq-e-Ahsan Still Valid Under Law
In this case, the petitioner’s father was the original owner of the building named "Beacon" at Santacruz, Mumbai. The property was requisitioned in 1982 and allotted to B.M. Ghatwai, a government servant who retired in 1990. An eviction order was subsequently passed against him in March 1996, citing the need to release the flat which had been under requisition for over 13 years.
The High Court noted that the requisition order had not been set aside, but an eviction order had indeed been passed prior to the cutoff date of 11 June 1996. As per Section 27, only those government allottees who were in legal possession of the premises and had not been served eviction orders before that date could be treated as deemed tenants.
"The original respondent No.3 retired in July 1990 and the eviction order was passed against him in March 1996. Therefore, he was not in legal occupation or possession on the statutory date of 7 December 1996," the Court stated.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Maheshchandra Trikamji Gajjar vs. State of Maharashtra, the bench reinforced that continued physical occupation without legal right does not amount to legal possession or status as a deemed tenant.
Read Also:-Bombay High Court Directs 10% Interest on Delayed Gratuity Payment to Retired Teacher
The Court rejected the argument made by the legal heirs of the original respondent, who claimed that he became a deemed tenant despite the eviction order. The bench emphasized that the legislative amendments in 1997 did not intend to benefit individuals who were no longer in legal occupation due to retirement and prior eviction orders.
The State Government also supported the petitioner’s stand, confirming that the original respondent could not claim protection under the amended Rent Act provisions since an eviction order was passed against him prior to the specified date.
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court directed the legal heirs of the original respondent to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the flat to the petitioner. The judgment reaffirms that deemed tenancy under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act applies only to those in legal occupation, thereby protecting the property rights of landlords from being indefinitely delayed due to outdated requisition orders.
Case title: Cyril Ribeiro vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors (Writ Petition No.3650 Of 1988)
