Bombay High Court
GUMANMAL MISHRIMAL MEHTAversusTHE CHIEF OFFICER, OF MUMBAI BLDG REPAIRS AND RECONSTRUCTION BOARD (M.B.R. AND R.B.)
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court did not adjudicate the certification claim, ordering a hearing before the Chief Officer and disposing the petition pending further consideration.
Summary
The petitioner, Gumanmal Mishrimal Mehta, filed a writ petition seeking certification as a tenant of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). The respondents, including the Chief Officer of the Mumbai Building Repairs & Reconstruction Board and MHADA, contended that the certification issue was already before the competent authority of MHADA and could not be decided by the court. The court noted that the hearing on the certification had been scheduled but could not be concluded because the developers (respondents 3‑5) needed to be heard. Accordingly, the court ordered that a hearing be held before the Chief Officer on 23 September 2026, after which the petitioner’s representations would be considered within four weeks. Keeping all contentions open, the court disposed of the petition without deciding the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to certification as a tenant of MHADA.
- Whether the court can adjudicate the certification when the matter is pending before the MHADA competent authority.
Subjects
- tenancy
- MHADA certification
- civil procedure
- hearing schedule
- petition disposal
Judgment
20. WP 1645-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1645 OF 2024
Gumanmal Mishrimal Mehta …. Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Officer of Mumbai
Building Repairs & Reconstruction
Board (MBR & RB) & Ors. … Respondents
…..
Mr. Kantilal Kanojia for the Petitioner.
Ms. Sayali Apte a/w Mr. Muralidharan Kalathil i/b Adv. P.G. Lad for
the Respondent-MHADA.
Mr. Aditya Kathare i/b Mr. Sanket Mungale for Respondent Nos.3 to
5.
…..
CORAM: M.S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 7th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. We have heard Mr. Kantilal Kanojia, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. Aditya Kathare, the learned Counsel for
Respondent Nos.3 to 5-developers. Ms. Sayali Apte, the learned
Counsel for the Respondent-MHADA, submits that the hearing on the
aspect of certification of the Petitioner as a tenant of MHADA is
already under consideration by the Competent Authority of MHADA.
The Petitioner has preferred two representations before the MHADA.
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 1/2
20. WP 1645-2024.doc
The learned Counsel for the Respondent-MHADA has submitted that
though the hearing was scheduled, the same could not be concluded,
as the developers are required to be heard.
2. In such view of the matter, it is submitted that the hearing
would be scheduled before Chief Officer, MBR & R Board-Respondent
No.1, within a period of two weeks from today. The Petitioner as well
as Respondent Nos.3 to 5 to appear before the Chief Officer, MBR &
R Board on 23rd September 2026 at 11.00 a.m. Within a period of
four weeks therefrom, the representations of the Petitioner, which the
Petitioner would tender on 22 nd September, 2026, shall be looked
into and appropriate decision be taken after hearing the Petitioner
and Respondent Nos.3 to 5 within four weeks thereafter.
3. Keeping all contentions of the parties open, the Petition stands
disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M.S. KARNIK, J.)
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 2/2
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
VASANT
VASANT CHITTEWAN
CHITTEWAN Date: 2026.09.08
18:01:07 +0530
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.