AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By the present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
“(a)Your Lordships be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 to 3 to take action of eviction against the Respondent no.4 under the provisions of Section 105B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 in respect of his unauthorized occupation of Room No.5, 1st Floor of Block no.2, I.R.Road, Sydenham Compound, Mumbai- 400 003.
(b)That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, the Respondent no.3 be directed to produce the transfer documents which have been submitted by the Respondent no.4 for transfer of tenancy of Room No.5, 1st Floor of Block no.2, I.R.Road, Sydenham Compound, Mumbai- 400 003.“
Heard Mr.Walavalkar for the Petitioner, Ms.Mhatre for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Mr.Kasar for Respondent No.4.
It is the case of the Petitioner that, he is the maternal relative of Salma Baig who was the tenant of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short “Municipal Corporation”) in respect of Room No.5, 1st Floor of Block no.2, I.R.Road, Sydenham Compound, Mumbai-400 003 (for short “the tenanted premises”). That, the tenanted premises was rented out by the Municipal Corporation from 7th December 1983 to Salma Baig at the monthly rent of Rs.33.37 vide the Tenancy Agreement dated 25th January 1984 (Exh.A to the Petition). Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner specifically drew our attention to Clause-6 of the said Tenancy Agreement, which reads as under:
“6.The room let to me has been taken for the use and occupation of myself and the members of my family mentioned therein, on the reverse to this agreement and I agree that this room will not to assigned or sub-let or allowed to be occupant by any person other than those mentioned as aforesaid and if it or any part of it is assigned or sub let to any other party shall be liable to be ejected immediately.”
Relying on the said Clause-6, it was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that, Salma Baig, the principal tenant had agreed not to assign or sublet or allow the said tenancy premises to be occupied by any person other than the principal tenant i.e. herself. Salma Baig, the principal tenant was married to one Ayub Baig on 9th July 2001. From the said marriage, Salma Baig had no issues. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner contended that, the Petitioner was residing in the said premises as he was born and brought up in the said premises. He further contended that, Salma Baig, principal tenant expired on 17th December 2013. After the demise of Salma Baig, her husband Ayub Baig was residing in the tenanted premises. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that, though Salma Baig never transferred the tenancy in the name of Ayub Baig, the tenanted premises has been sold to Respondent No.4 for a monetary consideration. It is the contention of learned Advocate for the Petitioner that, the tenanted premise was sold in contravention of the provisions of section 105B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short “MMC Act”) and that, the said premises belongs to the Municipal Corporation as a landlord.
It is on this premise that, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Petition seeking directions against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take action against Respondent No.4 under the provisions of section 105B of the MMC Act.
We have perused the entire record and considered the submissions of the Petitioner. It is not the case of the Petitioner that, he is entitled to tenancy in respect of tenanted premises, nor is it the case of the Petitioner that he is in possession of or residing in the said tenanted premises. On being specifically questioned as to whether the Petitioner is interested in the said premises, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, on instructions, informed the Court that the Petitioner has no interest in the said premises and he is only opposing an illegal transfer of the tenanted premises to Respondent No.4.
We fail to understand under what right the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions in respect of proposed actions of the Municipal Corporation. During the argument, the Petitioner himself has admitted that, he is not in possession, he does not have any interest and he does not claim any tenancy rights in respect of the subject premises.
An affidavit-in-reply dated 17th June 2026 has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perusal of the affidavit would indicate that, Respondent No.4 has submitted an application dated 9th January 2022 seeking transfer of the tenanted premises in his favour. In para-5. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have listed the documents submitted by Respondent No.4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have further categorically stated that, the matter is being processed in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations and the policy governing transfer of tenanted premises/ licence in respect of the municipal premises. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have stated that, when the site inspection in respect of tenanted premises was carried out, it was found that Respondent No.4 was in use, occupation and possession of the tenanted premises. A categorical statement has been made that, notwithstanding the possession of Respondent No.4 and the application made by him, the municipal records are not yet amended and the subject premises continues to stand in the name of late Salma Baig. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the said affidavit have further specifically stated that the request of transfer would be scrutinized and decided in accordance with the applicable provisions, rules, regulations, and the policy guidelines of the Municipal Corporation.
Considering the aforesaid facts of the matter and the submissions made, we find no merit in the challenge mounted by the Petitioner in the present Petition. With the aforesaid observation, Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Needless to say that the Municipal Corporation will take steps and proceed in accordance with law to decide the status of the tenanted premises and in accordance with the rules, regulations, and the policy guidelines of the Municipal Corporation.