Last week, on February 22, the Bombay High Court established new standards for eviction notices in a landmark ruling. Landlords are now required to provide clear and specific reasons for eviction, along with a reasonable notice period for tenants to address any issues.
Mumbai, Maharashtra: Last week (February 22), the Bombay High Court issued directives regarding eviction notices, aiming to ensure fairness and due process in such proceedings.
The directive, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata, addresses concerns raised by original slum dwellers facing eviction from multi-story buildings near Worli Dairy. These individuals contested a seven-day eviction notice issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), arguing that the abrupt displacement disrupted their lives without proper recourse.
The court’s intervention stemmed from petitions filed by the affected slum dwellers, highlighting the sudden nature of the eviction notices and the lack of adequate time for appeal. Criticizing the short notice period and the unavailability of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) for urgent appeals, the High Court emphasized the need for humane treatment and due process for all parties involved.
Following the petitioners’ hearing via videoconference, the AGRC temporarily stayed the eviction notices pending further examination. The committee cited the need for a thorough review, including assessments of coastal regulation zones and development control regulations, before reaching a decision.
“Irrespective of the period provided in any statute, all authorities will regard that as the minimum notice to be given.” Officials must consider “facts and circumstances of each case” and it is “insufficient to specify the number of hours for compliance”, it said, adding that the date specified must enable the recipient to approach court “on a court working day”.
HC said
READ ALSO: [BREAKING] “Land-for-Jobs” Scam: Court Grants CBI “Two Weeks” Time To Submit Charge Sheet
The High Court directed authorities to specify a reasonable timeframe for vacating properties, ensuring that recipients have ample opportunity to seek legal recourse. Emphasizing that specified dates must align with court working days, the court rejected arbitrary timelines and urged officials to consider the unique circumstances of each case.
