The Bombay High Court has ruled that a slum occupant cannot resist eviction under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act merely by raising a dispute over the location of the permanent alternate accommodation promised under a redevelopment project.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by a commercial slum occupant from Malad, the court held that disagreements regarding whether a rehabilitation shop should be road-facing or internally located cannot be used to block demolition and eviction proceedings, especially when such resistance delays completion of an entire Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) project.
Eviction Powers Under Slum Act Have Limited Scope: Court
Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, while deciding Writ Petition No. 2892 of 2025, observed that proceedings under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act are summary in nature and intended solely to ensure that slum rehabilitation projects are not obstructed.
The court clarified that, at the eviction stage, authorities are only required to examine whether:
- the occupant has been asked to vacate,
- the occupant has refused to comply, and
- such refusal is obstructing the progress of the rehabilitation project.
Questions relating to the exact location, frontage, or commercial advantage of the permanent alternate premises, the court said, fall outside the scope of eviction proceedings and must be agitated separately.
Case Background: Road-Facing Shop Dispute
The petitioner, Arvind Pravinkumar Mehta, was a commercial slum occupant whose structure stood in the way of obtaining the Fire NOC and Occupation Certificate for an almost-completed SRA rehabilitation building at Malad.
Mehta claimed that under a 2016 agreement with the developer, he was entitled to a road-facing commercial shop on Khotkuwa Road. When the SRA authorities directed eviction of his temporary structure, he refused to vacate, insisting that eviction could not proceed unless his exact rehabilitation shop location was finalised.
Authorities Acted to Protect Larger Public Interest
The Competent Authority of the SRA, by an order dated 1 January 2025, directed eviction under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act, noting that:
- the rehabilitation building was substantially complete,
- rent compensation had already been deposited,
- the petitioner’s structure was blocking fire access and project approvals, and
- hundreds of eligible slum dwellers were awaiting possession.
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) upheld this order on 6 May 2025, observing that individual disputes cannot be allowed to derail an entire public housing project.
‘Vacate First, Litigate Later’ Principle Reaffirmed
Upholding the eviction, the High Court relied on several earlier judgments, including Andrade Motors, Anil Kesrimal Jain, and recent rulings reiterating that rehabilitation entitlement disputes cannot override statutory eviction powers.
The court emphasised that while the petitioner remains free to pursue remedies for enforcement of contractual promises regarding shop location, such disputes cannot be raised as a defence against eviction under the Slum Act.
Petition Dismissed, Limited Protection Granted
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the eviction order, while granting the petitioner three weeks’ time to vacate peacefully. It clarified that the petitioner may pursue appropriate legal proceedings regarding allotment or agreement enforcement, but only after vacating the obstructing structure.
Impact of the Ruling
Legal experts say the ruling strengthens the hands of SRA authorities and developers by reaffirming that individual allotment grievances cannot be used to hold large-scale rehabilitation projects hostage. The judgment is expected to have significant implications for stalled SRA projects across Mumbai, where disputes over rehab flat or shop locations often delay completion and handover.
