Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 10-05-2019 in case of petitioner name Kumud W/O Mahadeorao Salunke vs Shri Pandurang Narayan Gandhew
| |

Eviction of Tenant from Slum Area: Supreme Court Upholds Landlord’s Rights

The case of Kumud W/O Mahadeorao Salunke vs. Shri Pandurang Narayan Gandhewar Through LRs & Others pertains to the eviction of a tenant from premises governed by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the landlord, setting aside the High Court’s decision that had remitted the case to the Slum Authority for fresh inquiry. The ruling clarifies the legal procedures required for eviction under the Slum Act and upholds the landlord’s right to recover possession.

The appellant, a landlord, had obtained necessary permissions from the Rent Controller and the Slum Authority to evict the respondent-tenant. However, the High Court set aside the permission granted by the Slum Authority, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The Court found that the tenant had exhausted all opportunities to contest the eviction and ruled in favor of the landlord.

Background of the Case

The dispute began when the appellant, as the landlord, filed an eviction petition against the respondent under the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The eviction was sought on the grounds of bona fide need and rent default. The Rent Controller granted permission, and the tenancy was terminated under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

However, since the premises fell under a slum area, the landlord had to obtain permission from the Slum Authority under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. After a detailed inquiry, the Slum Authority granted permission to the landlord, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging this decision.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant, represented by Advocate Dr. A. Rajeev B. Masodkar, argued:

  • The Slum Authority had conducted a proper inquiry and granted permission after due consideration.
  • The Appellate Authority had upheld the Slum Authority’s order after verifying all legal and factual aspects.
  • The respondent had already exhausted legal remedies before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
  • The High Court had no reason to interfere with the decision in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
  • The eviction decree granted by the lower courts had attained finality and could not be reopened.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent, represented by Advocate Mr. Kishor Lambat, countered:

  • The Slum Authority failed to consider whether alternative accommodation was available to the tenant, as required under Section 22(4) of the Slum Act.
  • The High Court correctly found that the Slum Authority’s order was cryptic and lacked proper reasoning.
  • The Appellate Authority could not substitute its reasoning for that of the original fact-finding authority.
  • Since the eviction would render the tenant homeless, the authorities should have ensured strict compliance with the Slum Act’s provisions.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the orders of the Slum Authority and the Appellate Authority. Key legal observations included:

  • The High Court erred in setting aside the Slum Authority’s order without considering that the Appellate Authority had already reviewed the matter in detail.
  • The tenant had multiple opportunities to contest the eviction and failed to prove that alternative accommodation was unavailable.
  • Under the Slum Act, the burden of proving the lack of alternative accommodation lies with the tenant.
  • The High Court’s decision to remand the matter for fresh inquiry was unnecessary and delayed the enforcement of the eviction order.

Key Judicial Findings

The Supreme Court ruled:

  • The High Court’s judgment was incorrect and was set aside.
  • The Appellate Authority’s order upholding the Slum Authority’s decision was restored.
  • The eviction order against the respondent was valid and could be executed.
  • The respondent’s plea regarding alternative accommodation was unsubstantiated.
  • The landlord’s right to recover possession was upheld.

Conclusion and Impact

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms the principle that once statutory authorities have examined and upheld an eviction order, High Courts should not interfere unless there is a manifest error. The judgment clarifies the burden of proof under the Slum Act and strengthens the rights of landlords while ensuring procedural fairness for tenants.

The decision will serve as a precedent for similar eviction cases involving slum areas, ensuring that landlords are not subjected to unnecessary delays after obtaining statutory approvals.


Petitioner Name: Kumud W/O Mahadeorao Salunke.
Respondent Name: Shri Pandurang Narayan Gandhewar Through LRs & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Place Of Incident: Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 10-05-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kumud WO Mahadeorao vs Shri Pandurang Naray Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-05-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category

Similar Posts