NEHA CHANDRAKANT SHROFF & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

NEHA CHANDRAKANT SHROFF & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

The High Court erred in declining to exercise its writ jurisdiction merely because an alternative remedy existed and because there was no written requisition; given the long occupation since 1940, the lapse of rent payments for many years and the practical injustice to the appellants, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, exercised writ jurisdiction and directed the respondents to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the two flats within four months and to pay arrears of rent accrued until handing over.

Parties
Appellants: Neha Chandrakant Shroff & Anr.; Respondents: The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (writ Petition No.2135 of 2009) Disposed by the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment dated 30.04.2024 set aside
Legal Topics
Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226, Requisition and Permissive Possession, Availability of Alternative Remedy, Recovery of Possession, Rent/arrears
Constitutional Law Property Law Administrative Law Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Requisition and Permissive Possession Availability of Alternative Remedy Recovery of Possession Rent/arrears

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neha Chandrakant Shroff & Anr.

Appellants

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (writ Petition No.2135 of 2009) Disposed by the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should have exercised writ jurisdiction under Article 226 despite availability of alternative remedies
  2. 2 Whether occupation of the flats by the Police Department since 1940 was by way of requisition or permissive/licence
  3. 3 Entitlement to recovery of possession and arrears of rent after long occupation

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in declining to exercise its writ jurisdiction merely because an alternative remedy existed and because there was no written requisition; given the long occupation since 1940, the lapse of rent payments for many years and the practical injustice to the appellants, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, exercised writ jurisdiction and directed the respondents to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the two flats within four months and to pay arrears of rent accrued until handing over.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment dated 30.04.2024 set aside

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of the High Court dated 30.04.2024 is set aside
  • Respondents to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of Flat Nos.11 and 12, 3rd floor, Amar Bhavan, A.R. Rangekar Marg, Opera House, Mumbai to the appellants within four months from the date of judgment