Supreme Court Addresses Procedural Flaw in Slum Tenancy Dispute.


26 September 2025 Dispute with Tenant/Landlord >> Property & Real Estate  

On the 26th of September 2025, the Supreme Court of India, led by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, dismissed a Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26702/2025 in the matter of Seema Sayappa Bansode v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. The petition had questioned a July 24, 2025, judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 14968/2024, which had quashed orders in a dispute over slum tenancy and directed the matter to be heard afresh.

Petitioner Seema Sayappa Bansode was represented by Advocates Rajkumar Awasthi, Manish Tomar, and Ashutosh Ghade (Advocate-on-Record) and approached the Court in order to redress a salient procedural anomaly: she was not heard prior to the judgment being delivered by the High Court. High Court had decided in the favor of Respondent No. 7 (the initial petitioner in the writ petition), who was opposing cancellation of their eligibility as a tenant under the Slum Act. The High Court determined the Deputy Collector (Respondent No. 4) orders to be "arbitrary, illegal, and perverse" as a result of the absence of clear reasoning and legal rationale in holding Respondent No. 7 to be ineligible and replacing Respondent No. 5 as an eligible tenant.


 

 
 
 

The ruling by the High Court brought forth a number of concerns: the stipulation of Respondent No. 7 in Annexure II as a qualifying slum dweller was done following stringent examination by the Competent Authority (Respondent No. 4). Subsequent orders stripping this person of the status, however, did not have precise legal reasons or elaborate explanations. The High Court quashed the orders, instructing the Deputy Collector to reconsider the application with reasonable and legally valid grounds while keeping the position of the tenement in abeyance until a final order.

In the Supreme Court, it was contended by the petitioner that the High Court's order was passed without serving her a notice, depriving her of an opportunity to place her case. Admitting this procedural oversight, the Supreme Court allowed Bansode to come in during the fresh proceedings before the Deputy Collector. The Court instructed the Deputy Collector to hear everyone, including the petitioner, and render an impartial order, without being swayed by the High Court's remarks. The Court asserted that the hearing be expedited with a view to answering the issue at hand.

Moreover, the Supreme Court granted the petitioner's requests for exemption from submitting certified copies of the impugned judgment and other papers. All the applications pending were disposed of and concluded the proceedings.

This judgment reflects the judiciary's zeal for ensuring equitable hearings and procedural justice in matters of tenancies, especially in cases of slum rehabilitation schemes. By ordering that the case be heard afresh and the right of the petitioner to be heard ensured, the Court reaffirms the dictum of natural justice.