9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the eviction order passed by MHADA under Section 66(1) of the Maharashtra Housing and Development Act, 1966. 2. Legitimacy of the claim by Respondent No. 3 regarding contribution towards the flat's purchase. 3. Legal standing of the Conciliator's report and the settlement agreement. 4. Compliance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly the procedural requirements for conciliation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Eviction Order by MHADA: The dispute concerns a flat in Mumbai leased by MHADA, initially transferred to the appellant. MHADA, upon inspection, found the appellant and his family, including Respondent No. 3, occupying the flat unauthorizedly. Consequently, MHADA initiated proceedings under Section 66(1) of the Maharashtra Housing and Development Act, 1966, leading to the eviction of the unauthorized occupants and sealing of the flat. MHADA later regularized the allotment in favor of the appellant after examining relevant documents. 2. Legitimacy of Respondent No. 3's Claim: Respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition claiming he contributed Rs. 1,25,000 towards the flat's purchase. The Bombay High Court directed MHADA to re-examine the claims of both parties. Subsequently, MHADA rejected Respondent No. 3's claim and confirmed the allotment to the appellant. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 then challenged this order, seeking possession and regularization of the flat in their favor. 3. Legal Standing of the Conciliator's Report and Settlement Agreement: The High Court appointed a conciliator to resolve the dispute, with both parties agreeing that the conciliator's decision would be final and binding. The conciliator suggested a settlement where Respondent No. 3 would pay Rs. 4,00,000 to the appellant, relinquish claims on another flat, and have the flat in question regularized in his favor. However, the settlement proposal was not signed by the parties and was submitted to the High Court in a sealed cover. The appellant raised objections, but the High Court summarily rejected them, treating the conciliator's report as the final order. 4. Compliance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: The Supreme Court highlighted the distinction between arbitration and conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Act mandates specific procedures for conciliation, including the formulation and mutual agreement on settlement terms. The conciliator must submit the terms to the parties for their observations and obtain their signatures on the settlement agreement. In this case, the conciliator failed to follow these procedures, drawing up the settlement in secrecy and submitting it without the parties' signatures. The Supreme Court emphasized that the statutory procedure must be followed, and any deviation renders the settlement invalid. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and the conciliator's settlement agreement. The case was remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with the law. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.
|
