Twitter
Advertisement

Bombay HC protects police chief’s tenancy rights

Landlady’s attempt to evict top cop under the Land Requisition Act so she could redevelop her Mahul plot fails.

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

The Mumbai commissioner Arup Patnaik is a relieved man, with the Bombay High Court protecting the eight Chembur tenements of which he is a direct tenant from redevelopment, which would have lead to the loss of his tenancy rights. The court has ordered the developer to maintain a status quo.

The commissioner is the tenant in Sukhi Nivas, which belongs to one Sukhibai Voral, on Mahul road. The commissioner can allot the eight rooms under his tenancy as official service quarters.

The history behind the legal battle dates back to 1961, when Sukhibai moved a plea before the Controller of Accommodation (CoA) for de-requisiting the property, which was then in the police possession, as under the Bombay Land Requisition Act. The order was passed in favour of Sukhibai. However, in a few years, she agreed to allow the commissioner to be her tenant again.
In the mid-2000, Sukhibai entered a redevelopment agreement with developer Ajai Nensee.

Following this, Sukhibai moved yet another plea before the Controller of Accommodation to evict the commissioner, taking re-course to the 1997 Supreme Court ruling that directed the state government to de-requisite all properties requisitioned by it. “Accordingly on September 24, 2009, the CoA passed an ex-parte order evicting the Commissioner. The next day possession of the tenements was handed to the developer,” said Additional Government Pleader G W Mattos.

The then police commissioner D Sivanandhan moved the General Administration Department (GAD) challenging the CoA order, following which in March 2010 it was set aside and the government body directed to hear the plea afresh after serving a notice to the police commissioner. The police chief also wrote a letter to the Brihanmumbai Municipal commissioner, requesting him not allow any redevelopment permission. The BMC sent a notice to the developer, which he challenged by him along with the government’s order rejecting the CoA’s earlier decision.

When both petitions were recently heard, Mattos placed on record a suit copy filed by the Sukhibai in the court of small causes in 1966, demanding that the commissioner pay his rent as a tenant.

Mattos argued “Since the Police Department was in possession of the premises as a tenant, which are outside the provisions of the Requisition Act, the tenancy rights could not have been disturbed.”  Based on the submissions made by him, the court passed an order to maintain status quo.

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement