Tenant Cannot Challenge Notice Under Sections 52 & 53 Of MRTP Act; Only Landlord Can: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of the impugned notices issued by the Malegaon Municipal Corporation under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act).
The Bombay High Court clarified that a tenant of a structure cannot challenge the notice under Sections 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. Only the landlord can challenge the same.
The High Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of the impugned notices issued by the Malegaon Municipal Corporation to the Petitioner under sections 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act).
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata asserted,“The Petitioner has a remedy against the landlord and his rights stand protected.”
Advocate Alankar Kirpekar represented the Petitioner while Assistant Government Pleader A.A. Alaspurkar represented the Respondents.
Arguments
The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a tenant of a tin shed situated at Malegaon since several decades. As per the Petitioner, the Corporation’s notice was issued at the instance of the landlord who desired to evict him. It was further submitted that without hearing the Petitioner or considering the reply, the Respondent Corporation issued two other notices.
It was the Respondent’s case that the Petitioner could not justify his claim about the authorized structure that he occupied. It was argued that the building permission was in respect of a structure on Final Flat No.98 in Town Planning Scheme whereas the Petitioner’s structure is on Final Plot No.96. Thus, the notices were rightly issued.
Issue
The issue before the Bench was whether a tenant of a structure can challenge the issuance of notice by the Corporation under Section 52 and 53 of the MRTP Act.
Reasoning
Discarding the arguments of the Petitioner, the Bench explained, “A tenant of a structure cannot challenge the notice under Section 52 and 53 of the MRTP Act, only the landlord can challenge the same. The Petitioner’s right if any is only against his landlord.”
Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench in Anandrao G. Pawar V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others reported in 2023 that reiterated the decision of the Supreme Court in Shaha Ratansi Khimji and Sons V/s. Kumbhar Sons Hotel Private Limited and Others (2014) wherein it was held that the fact that the tenanted building is brought down does not mean that a tenancy is extinguished or comes to an end.
Noting that the tenant’s rights are protected by the Statute, the Bench held, “Therefore, the Petitioner will be entitled to establish his tenancy rights in the jurisdictional Civil Court and if succeeds, then will be entitled to such premises as he occupied or would be entitled to reconstruct the premises on the landlords land, if the landlord fails to reconstruct the premises within the stipulated time under the statute as held in Anandrao G. Pawar (supra).”
“In any event, we are unable to determine and protect the rights of a tenant qua the subject property in the writ jurisdiction”, the Bench concluded while dismissing the Petition.
Cause Title: Vivek Krushna Dode v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:2854-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Alankar Kirpekar, Ayush Tiwari, Sanjay Shinde
Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader A.A. Alaspurkar, Advocates Shrinivas S. Patwardhan, Akshay Hardas
