Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 12 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition No.: 12740 of 2017
  • Parties: Petitioners – Estate Officer, Officer of Assistant Commissioner and Others (representing the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai); Respondent – Khairunnisa Mohammed Aslam Ansari (Respondent No. 1). Legal representatives: Mr. Dhrupad Patil & Mr. Santosh Mali for Petitioners/BMC; Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jain & Mr. H. M. Singh for Respondent No. 1.
  • Nature of proceedings: Writ petition challenging the order of the Civil Court (in appeal) which had set aside an eviction order originally passed by the Eviction Officer under Section 105D of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
  • Background: The Municipal Corporation issued a show‑cause notice to Respondent No. 1 on two grounds: (i) induction of a tenant in the premises, and (ii) alleged unauthorised occupation of the premises. The Eviction Officer, after consideration, directed the eviction of Respondent No. 1. The Civil Court, on appeal, set aside that eviction order. The Corporation filed the present petition seeking reinstatement of the eviction.
  • Allegations & submissions: Advocate Mr. Patil argued that Respondent No. 1 already occupied another municipal premises (Room No. 14) and, under municipal policy, a person already holding a tenancy cannot obtain a second tenancy. He contended that the second tenancy was obtained by suppressing material facts, which should constitute unauthorised occupation under Section 105D.
  • Judicial observations: The Court examined the definition of “unauthorised occupation” under Section 105A(d) of the Act, which requires that the occupant either lacks authority or that the authority has expired/been terminated. The Court found no record that the Municipal Corporation had issued any notice terminating Respondent No. 1’s tenancy or otherwise determining the tenancy before the show‑cause notice. Consequently, the Court held that occupation under an existing authority cannot be deemed unauthorised merely because it contravenes municipal policy.
  • Reasoning: Without a formal determination of the tenancy or a legally recognised termination of the authority, the allegation of policy breach alone does not satisfy the statutory requirement for unauthorised occupation. The Court therefore could not sustain the finding of unauthorised occupation.
  • Directions:

1. The petition is disposed of; no finding of unauthorised occupation is recorded.

2. The Municipal Corporation may, if it deems necessary, initiate fresh eviction proceedings under Section 105D, provided it complies with all legal requirements, including giving Respondent No. 1 a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

3. If fresh proceedings are initiated, the Authorised Officer must decide the matter within six months from the filing date.

4. Respondent No. 1 must communicate his current and correct address to the Municipal Corporation within two weeks from the date of this order. Failure to do so will preclude him from claiming lack of hearing solely on the ground of non‑service of notice.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed the Municipal Corporation’s petition, finding no basis to declare the respondent’s occupation unauthorised. The matter is left open for the Corporation to pursue fresh eviction proceedings in accordance with law, and the respondent is directed to provide his address within two weeks.

Topics: Eviction, Municipal Law