SACHIN PURSHOTTAM POOJARIversusFLYMI SADANANDAN

Gitalaxmi                                            45-WP-12362-2025-J.docx



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                  WRIT PETITION NO. 12362 OF 2025

1. SACHIN S/O. PURSHOTTAM POOJARI,
   Aged about 41 years, Occ.:Service.

2. SRIVIDYA D/O. PURSHOTTAM POOJARI,
   Aged about 37 years, Occ.:Housewife,

Both are residing in Room No. 3,
Dwarkaprasad Dube Chawl,
Gamdevi Road, Bhandup (W),
Mumbai-400 078.                                      ...PETITIONERS

                      Versus

1. MISS. FLYMI SADANANDAN,
   Aged 40 years, Occ.:Household.

2. SANJEEV SADANANDAN,
   Aged 36 years, Occ.:Business,

Both adults, Indian Inhabitants,
residing at Jaishree Niketan, 1st Floor,
N.E.S. Marg, Bhattipada, Bhandup (W),
Mumbai-400 078.                                      ...RESPONDENTS

   Mr. H. P. Pandey, Advocate for the Petitioners.

   Ms. Minakshi Surve, Advocate for the Respondents.

                               CORAM       : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

                               DATE        : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                                 Page 1 of 10
                            7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                           45-WP-12362-2025-J.docx



ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.          Heard Mr. Pandey, learned Advocate appearing for the

Petitioners and Ms. Minakshi Surve, learned Advocate appearing for

the Respondents.


2.          By the present Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the

order dated 6th August, 2025 passed by the Appellate Bench of

learned Small Causes Court, Mumbai, in Revision Application No. 67

of 2025, whereby the Appellate Bench was pleased to dismiss the

application filed by the Judgment-Debtor under Section 47 of the

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and upheld the order dated 27 th January,

2025 passed by the learned Small Causes Court in Exhibit-20.


3.          The facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition, in brief,

are that R.A.E. Suit No. 574 of 2007 was instituted by the

Respondents against the original tenants and obtained a decree

dated 24th August, 2015 in their favour. The original Defendant

preferred an Appeal No. 475 of 2015 against the decree of eviction,

which came to be dismissed.


                                   Page 2 of 10
                              7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                           45-WP-12362-2025-J.docx



4.          Upon dismissal of the Appeal, the Respondents/Plaintiffs

instituted execution proceedings bearing Execution Application No.

331 of 2016, before the learned Small Causes Court. By an order

dated 26th August 2024, the Executing Court issued a Warrant of

Possession. In the said execution proceedings, the Petitioners filed

an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

at Exhibit-20, raising an objection as to the executability of decree on

the ground that the execution was barred by the provisions of

Section 22(1)(b) of the Slum Act as the Plaintiffs had failed to obtain

requisite permission from the Competent Authority to execute the

decree. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned

Trial Court by order dated 27 th January, 2025. The said order was

challenged before the Appellate Bench of learned Small Causes Court

in Revision Application No. 67 of 2025.

5.          It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the said

Appeal in execution proceedings, the larger property, including the

suit premises situated on C.T.S. Nos. 197 and 197/1 to 10,

admeasuring 1543.8 sq.meters, came to be declared as a Slum Area


                                  Page 3 of 10
                             7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                                     45-WP-12362-2025-J.docx



under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas

(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“Slum

Act”) on 18th December, 2018. By order dated 6 th August, 2025, the

Appellate Bench has dismissed the Revision Application, against

which the present Petition is filed.


6.          Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that since the

suit premises was included in the area declared as a Slum Area on

18th December, 2018, permission of the Competent Authority is

required to proceed with the eviction application of the Decree

Holder, in view of the bar under Section 22(1)(b) of the Slum Act.

7.          In support of his submissions, learned Advocate for the

Petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of

Gauri Pannalal Prajapati v/s. Harishankar Dudhnath Yadav1.


8.          Per contra, learned Advocate for the Respondents/Decree

Holders submits that the execution application was instituted in the

year 2016, much prior to the declaration of the suit property as a

Slum Area within the provisions of Slum Act.                       It is, therefore,
1
  Writ Petition No. 2588 of 2019 along with other Writ Petitions decided on 25th July,
2019.
                                       Page 4 of 10
                                  7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                               45-WP-12362-2025-J.docx



submitted that the requirement of obtaining prior permission of the

Competent Authority under Section 22(1)(b) of the Slum Act would

not arise in the course of execution of a decree.

9.           Admittedly, the suit property is declared as slum on 18 th

December, 2018 after filing of the execution proceedings in the year

2016.       The issue involved in the present Petition is ‘whether the

execution can proceed without permission of the Competent

Authority under Section 22(1)(b) of the Slum Act?’

10.          Section 22(1)(b) of the Slum Act is relevant and is noted

below for ready reference :-


        “22. Proceedings for eviction of occupiers [or for issue of
        distress warrant] not to be taken without permission of
        Competent Authority.— (1) Notwithstanding anything
        contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person
        shall except with the previous permission in writing of the
        Competent Authority,—

        (a) institute, after commencement of the Maharashtra Slum
        Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971
        (Mah. XXVIII of 1971), any suit or proceeding for obtaining any
        decree or order for the eviction of an occupier from any building
        or land [in a slum area or for recovery of any arrears of rent or
        compensation from any such occupier, or for both; or] [These


                                     Page 5 of 10
                                7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                              45-WP-12362-2025-J.docx



        words were substituted for the words 'in a slum area; or by
        Maharashtra 2 of 1987, Section 2(a)(i).]

        (b) when any decree or order is obtained in any suit or
        proceeding instituted before such commencement for the
        eviction of an occupier from any building or land in such area
        [or for recovery of any arrears of rent or compensation from
        such occupier, or for both] execute such decree [or order; or]”



11.         In the present case, it is not disputed that the decree was

passed in the year 2015 in R.A.E. Suit No. 574 of 2007 and

confirmed in the year 2016; execution application is filed in the year

2016; so also the suit property was declared as a Slum Area on 18 th

December 2018.


12.         Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Gauri

Pannalal Prajapati (supra), by the Petitioners and paragraph no. 10 is

quoted below for ready reference :-

        “10. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the
        learned Counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused
        the material on record. I have already extracted paragraph 29
        of the order dated 06.03.2018 passed by this Court in various
        C.R.As. filed by the defendants. The defendants did not carry
        the matter further. The plaintiff proceeded to file execution

                                    Page 6 of 10
                               7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                              45-WP-12362-2025-J.docx



        proceedings. Defendants have come with the case that during
        the pendency of the execution proceedings, the Competent
        Authority has declared the area admeasuring 494.40 sq.mtrs.
        out of 2482B (part) as a slum area. A perusal of paragraph 29,
        extracted hereinabove, shows that the total area of C.T.S. No.
        2482 if 3689 sq.mtrs. Earlier, by notification dated 29.05.2008,
        area admeasruing 2105.10 sq.mtrs. of C.T.S. No. 2482(part)
        was declared as a slum area. The moot question is whether by
        virtue of notification dated 06.07.2018 declaring area of 494.40
        sq.mtrs. as slum area, the plaintiff is required to obtain
        permission under Section 22(1)(b) of the Slum Act or not. The
        question can be answered only upon permitting parties to
        adduce evidence to substantiate their rival contentions. On one
        hand, plaintiff contends that suit properties are not covered by
        the area of 494.40 sq.mtrs. declared as a slum area. On the
        other, defendants contend that suit properties are covered by
        the area declared as a slum area.”

13.          The judgment relied upon by the Petitioners in the case of

Gauri Pannalal Prajapati (supra) arose in a different factual context.

In that matter, the issue before the Court, inter alia, was whether the

portion of land on which the suit premises is situated, had in fact

been declared as a Slum Area prior to the filing of execution

application. The issue arose as part of the property was declared as

                                     Page 7 of 10
                                7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                          45-WP-12362-2025-J.docx



slum in the year 2008 and the remaining property was declared as

slum in the year 2018. The execution application was filed in the

year 2017. Thus the issue before the Court was ‘whether the suit

property was situated in the area declared as slum in the year 2008

or 2018?’.      Thus the matter was remanded by the Court for

consideration of evidence on that aspect. However, the judgment

does not support the submission of the Petitioners.


14.         In the present matter, the declaration of the suit property

as a Slum Area on 18th December, 2018 is not in dispute. The

principal question that arises for consideration is whether, in the

circumstances of the present case, the subsequent declaration of the

suit property as a Slum Area attracts the requirement of obtaining

permission of the Competent Authority under Section 22(1)(b) of the

Slum Act for continuing the execution proceedings for execution of

an eviction decree.

15.         This Court is of the view that the requirement of obtaining

permission under Section 22(1)(a) or (b) of the Slum Act, has to be

examined with reference to the date on which the proceedings are

                                  Page 8 of 10
                             7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                           45-WP-12362-2025-J.docx



instituted.     Where the execution itself is instituted before the

declaration of the property as a Slum Area, a subsequent declaration

of the property as a Slum Area cannot, by itself, render the decree

inexecutable without obtaining permission.             The subsequent

declaration does not retrospectively alter the nature or validity of the

execution proceedings already instituted. The requirement of prior

permission, therefore, cannot be invoked to defeat or suspend the

execution of an eviction decree until the permission is obtained of

the Competent Authority, merely on account of a subsequent

declaration of suit property as being in a slum area under the Slum

Act. Section 22 of the Slum Act uses a word “institute” and the bar

under Section 22 of the Act applies for institution of the proceedings

without permission of the Competent Authority.

16.         Considering the above, no case is made out to interfere with

the impugned orders. Hence, the present Petition stands dismissed

and disposed of accordingly.




                                  Page 9 of 10
                             7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                                        45-WP-12362-2025-J.docx



17.             Upon request of the Petitioners, the interim relief granted

earlier, is continued to operate for a period of four weeks from the

date of uploading of this judgment.


18.             List this matter on 5th October, 2026.




                                                         [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]


                        Digitally signed
                        by GITALAXMI
            GITALAXMI   KRISHNA
            KRISHNA     KOTAWADEKAR
            KOTAWADEKAR Date:
                        2026.09.08
                        11:19:58 +0530




                                                Page 10 of 10
                                           7th SEPTEMBER, 2026