Maganlal Chhaganlal
Maganlal Chhaganlal
Vs.
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay and Ors.
1974
FACTS
• These appeals and writ petitions relate to the legality of certain proceedings
taken under Chapter V-A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 and
the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955.
• According to the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act provisions, the
Commissioner in relation to premises belonging to or vesting in, or taken on
lease by the corporation was granted certain powers of eviction in respect of
unauthorized occupation of any corporation premises.
• Under Section 105B the Commissioner, by notice served on the person in
unauthorized occupation, could ask him to vacate the premises. Before making
such an order the Commissioner should issue a notice calling upon the person
concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made.
• The person concerned can file a written statement and produce documents and is
entitled to appear before the Commissioner. The Commissioner has, for the
purpose of holding any inquiry, the same powers as are vested in a civil court
under the CPC. An appeal from every order of the Commissioner lies to the
principal Judge of the City Civil Court or such other judicial officer as the
principal Judge may designate.
• The provisions of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act
are more or less similar except that they relate to Government
premises and the power to order eviction is given to the competent
authority not tower in rank than that of a Deputy Collector or an
Executive Engineer appointed by the State Government.
• Section 8A of this Act provides that no Civil Court shall have
jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the
eviction of any person from any Government premises on any of the
grounds specified in Section 4 or the recovery of the arrears of rent
or the damages payable for use or occupation of such premises.
• These laws were challenged on the ground of availability of two
procedures for eviction of unauthorized premises one under ordinary
civil procedure and another under the special procedure under the
above Acts.
ISSUE
• Whether Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 and the Bombay
Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 are violative of Article
14 of the constitution ?
PETITIONERS ARGUMENTS
• The petitioner claimed that there were two procedures available to
the Corporation and the State Government, one by way of a suit
under the ordinary law (which is the CPC) and the other under either
of the two Acts, which is harsher and more onerous than the
procedure under the ordinary law, the latter is hit by Article 14 of
the Constitution in the absence of any guidelines as to which
procedure may be adopted.
• Since there are two procedures available, the question of which out
of the two procedures would apply, would be discriminatory in
nature as it would be completely at an arbitrary will on the decision
of the authority.
BENCH
7 Judge bench