Bombay High Court
HIMMATSING GAGUJI JADEJAversusMAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND ARE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MHADA)
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- M S KARNIKS M MODAK
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Vice President of MHADA within two weeks.
Summary
The petitioner, Himmatsing Gaguji Jadeja, challenged an order dated 27 May 2025 that added Bharti R. Shah as an occupant/tenant of a flat in Mumbai, asserting that he himself is the rightful occupant and possesses documentary proof. The respondents, including MHADA, argued that the petitioner’s remedy lies under a Government Resolution dated 16 August 2010, which provides for an appeal to the Vice President of MHADA. The Court examined whether the High Court could entertain the writ petition or whether the petitioner must first pursue the administrative remedy. It concluded that the petitioner must file an appeal with the Vice President of MHADA within two weeks, and that the Vice President should decide the appeal within ten weeks, hearing Respondent No. 4. No merits of the occupancy claim were decided, and the writ petition was disposed of without substantive findings.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can directly challenge the addition of Bharti R. Shah as occupant through a writ petition.
- Whether the petitioner is required to first avail the administrative remedy under the 2010 Government Resolution before approaching the court.
Subjects
- occupancy
- tenancy
- administrative remedy
- MHADA
- writ petition
- appeal
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
37. WP 3380 of 2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3380 OF 2025
Himmatsing Gaguji Jadeja ...Petitioner
Vs.
Maharashtra Housing and Area
Development Authority (MHADA)
and Ors. ...Respondents
*****
Adv. Pulkit Tiwari i/by Mr. Kamlesh Tiwari- Advocate for the
Petitioner
Adv. Sayali Apte i/by Adv. P. G. Lad - for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3-
MHADA.
Adv. Abhay D. Parabh – For Respondent No. 5 (through VC)
*****
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 23rd APRIL 2026
P. C. :-
1. The impugned order in this petition is dated 27.05.2025 by
which the name of Bharti R. Shah, who is Respondent No. 4 in this
petition was added as occupant/tenant of Room No. 79 of the 2 nd floor,
Haribaug Chaw, Lower Parel, Mumbai.
2. The Petitioner has grievance to the name of the Bharti Shah-
Digitally
signed by
Respondent No. 4 being added as occupant. The Petitioner claims that
SEEMA SEEMA
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ YELKAR
Date:
YELKAR 2026.04.24
11:49:32
+0530
Seema 1/2
37. WP 3380 of 2025.doc
his name should be there as an occupant. It is submitted that the
Petitioner has documentary proof to substantiate his claim as occupant
of the said tenement.
3. Ms. Apte, learned counsel for the MHADA submitted that in
view of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.2010 for deciding the
eligibility, the Petitioner has remedy to approach the Vice President of
MHADA by filing an appeal.
4. In such view of the matter, the petition is disposed of by
directing the Petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Vice President of
MHADA. If appeal is preferred within a period of two weeks from
today, we request Vice President of MHADA to decide the appeal
expeditiously and in any event, within a period of ten weeks from the
date of filing of the appeal. Needless to mention that appropriate order
in the appeal shall be passed after hearing the Respondent No. 4.
5. Keeping all contentions open which are raised in this petition,
the Writ Petition is disposed of. We make it clear that we have not
made any observations on the merits of any of the contentions.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Seema 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.