In a recent ruling, the Competent Authority of the Rent Control Act Court rejected an eviction application filed by Stanley D’Souza, a resident of Worli, stating that the structure in question was an illegal encroachment on government land. The court emphasized that since the land belongs to the government and the structure was built on the same, hence no one can claim ownership of the premises /hut.
The court's decision was based on the finding that the structure which was built, was a Hut and as per the government rules, a hut which is built on a government land, can never be transferred to another, making the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act inapplicable to the case. Consequently, D’Souza's application under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act was deemed not maintainable.
In his application, D’Souza claimed to be the lawful owner of the premises and alleged that in 2011, he had entered into a Leave and License agreement with Jairam Mulchandani, allowing him to occupy the premises temporarily. The agreement, which was valid from July 1, 2011, to June 10, 2012, required Mulchandani to pay a security deposit of Rs 2 lakhs and a monthly rent of Rs 3,000.
In May 2012, D’Souza issued a notice to Mulchandani, reminding him of the impending expiration of the agreement and requesting that he vacate the premises by the agreed-upon date. However, Mulchandani neither vacated the premises nor responded to the notice.
Mulchandani defended his continued occupancy by arguing that D’Souza was not the rightful owner of the premises, but that the initial sale agreement had taken place in August 1996 between Umar Malik Gulam Malik and Jagdish G. Chounal, and since then the hands have been changed, land in question never belongs to D’Souza and, therefore, had no authority to execute the Leave and License agreement. He claimed that the structure was located in a slum area and thus did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Act.
The court upheld Mulchandani’s defense, ruling that the structure was indeed an illegal encroachment on government land. It further maintained that no individual has the right to sell or lease such land, leading to the rejection of D’Souza’s eviction application.
