Bombay High Court
RAHUL DINESH SINGH ALIAS THAKURversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to possession and that the rent dispute should be determined by the Chief Officer of MHADA, while the pending representation against the developer must be examined and appropriate action taken.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Dinesh Singh, sought possession of a redeveloped premises, alleging that the respondents were withholding possession on the pretext of unpaid rent and that the developer (Respondent No.5) was violating redevelopment norms. The Court noted that an earlier order dated 25 August 2026 had already directed that possession be handed over to the petitioner, which had been complied with. It directed both the petitioner and Respondent No.6 to present their rent calculations before the Chief Officer of MHADA to determine any arrears, with a decision to be rendered within twelve weeks. The Court also ordered the Executive Engineer of the Building Proposals Department to examine a pending representation dated 23 April 2025 against Respondent No.5 and to initiate appropriate action if warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, with the matter of rent arrears and the developer’s alleged violations to be resolved on their merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to possession of the premises despite alleged rent liabilities.
- How the dispute over rent arrears should be adjudicated between the petitioner and Respondent No.6.
- Whether the authorities must act on the petitioner’s representation alleging violation of the redevelopment project by Respondent No.5.
Subjects
- possession
- rent arrears
- redevelopment project
- writ petition
- MHADA
- urban development
- administrative action
- landlord-tenant dispute
Judgment
6-WP-2042-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2042 OF 2026
Rahul Dinesh Singh Alias Thakur .....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary,
Urban Development Department .....Respondents
.....
Mr. Jayesh S. Kalanke a/w Mr. Laxman B. Yadav, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar for the Respondent No.4 – MHADA.
Mr. Bibhishan Sutar i/b Adv.Komal Punjabi for the Respondent –
BMC.
Mr. Jonathan D’silva for the Respondent No.5.
Mr. Harshad M. Deshpande for the Respondent No.6.
Ms. Anupamaa Pawar, A.G.P for the Respondent – State.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 6th OCTOBER, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. On 25th August, 2026, the following order was passed.
“1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Wakodikar 1/4
Digitally signed
by RUPALI
RAJESH
RUPALI WAKODIKAR
RAJESH
WAKODIKAR Date:
2026.10.09
11:48:05
+0530
6-WP-2042-2026.doc
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the possession of the
premises to which the petitioner is entitled is not being
handed over to him on the premise that there are some
charges which the respondent No.5 is insisting the petitioner
to pay. Moreover, it is the submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner that the rent towards the alternate
accommodation has not been paid since the demolition of the
structure.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 prays for and is
granted two weeks’ time to file an affidavit-in-reply.
Respondent No.5 has handed over the development rights to
the respondent No.6. Learned counsel for respondent No.6, on
instructions, submitted that the entire rent has been paid till
the time when the petitioner should have taken the possession.
It is submitted that it is completely a fault on the part of the
petitioner in refusing to take possession. Respondent No.6 to
file the affidavit-in-reply.
4. Since respondent No.6 is willing to hand over possession
of the premises, the petitioner to be put in possession and the
petitioner to accept the possession of the premises forthwith.
This is however subject to the rights and contentions of either
parties, which shall be dealt with after the affidavit-in-reply is
filed. It is made clear that if it is later found that the petitioner
is liable to pay any charges or the developer is liable to pay the
rent, this order is subject to further orders of this Court.
5. In the meantime, the parties submit that they are willing
to negotiate and amicably resolve the dispute.
6. List the writ petition on 16/09/2026 under the caption
“for filing consent terms”.
7. The matter is listed today for filing Consent Terms. However,
Wakodikar 2/4
6-WP-2042-2026.doc
the petitioner submits that there are several grievances made by him
which remained to be resolved. It is submitted that the respondent
Nos.5 and 6 are not accepting the liability to pay the rent. The
contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 is that
this is a disputed fact. Suffice it to observe that in terms of order
dated 25th August, 2026 passed by us, the possession in question has
been handed over to the petitioner and he is in possession of the
same. Considering that there is a dispute as regards to the payment
of rent, we permit the petitioner to file a detailed representation to
the Chief Officer, MHADA for ascertaining the arrears of rent. The
petitioner as well as respondent No.6 may file their calculations
before the Chief Officer, MHADA or the officer designated by him to
decide the quantum arrears of rent if any payable to the petitioner.
8. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.6 to appear before
the Chief Officer, MHADA on 19 th October, 2026 at 11.00 a.m.
alongwith their respective calculations.
9. The issue of payment of rent or the arrears thereof be decided
within a period of twelve weeks from 20 th October, 2026, on its own
merits, in accordance with law.
Wakodikar 3/4
6-WP-2042-2026.doc
10. The other grievances of the petitioner is that the petitioner has
time and again requested through his Advocate for initiating action
against the respondent No.5.
11. Despite repeated representations and despite pointing out the
fact that there has been violation of the re-development project, no
action has been taken. One representation dated 23 rd April, 2025 is
pending before the Building Proposals Department of the
Corporation which is at page 342 of the petition. The Executive
Engineer of the Building Proposals Department to look into the said
representation and if any action is warranted, the same be initiated
against the developers, expeditiously, in accordance with law.
12. With the aforesaid directions, petition is disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar 4/4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.