CHANDRACHUD,J. - (1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges an order dated September 12, 1967 passed by respondent No. 2, the State of Maharashtra, confirming in appeal an order dated September 28, 1966 passed by respondent No. 1 the Competent Authority, under Section 53A of the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 (Act LXIX of 1948) hereinafter called 'the Act.'
(2.) BY a letter dated February 10, 1961, the Estate Manager of the Maharashtra Housing Board informed the petitioner, a hutment dweller, that it was decided to allot to him a two -room tenement at Motilal Nagar, Goregaon Colony, under the Slum Dwellers Rehabilitation Scheme. The petitioner executed a tenancy agreement in favour of the Chairman of the Board and gave the necessary undertakings in the prescribed form. Clause 17 of the agreement provides that the tenancy would be terminable by one calendar month's notice on either side. Clause 20 provides that the tenancy shall be subject to the provisions of the Act, the Rules, Regulations and bye -laws for the time being in force. On April 8, 1965, the Estate Manager gave a notice to the petitioner terminating his tenancy and calling upon him to hand over vacant possession of the tenement on the expiry of the month commencing on May 1, 1965. The notice stated that -in default of compliance, the petitioner would be evicted as an unauthorised occupant under the provisions of the Act. On the following day, a letter was written by the Estate Manager to the petitioner stating that his continuance as a tenant of the Board was 'not felt desirable by the Board,' that he should therefore surrender vacant possession of the tenement allotted to him and that his tenancy was being separately terminated. On September 17, 1965, the Assistant Housing Commissioner, acting as the Competent Authority under the Act, gave a notice to the petitioner to show cause why lie should not be evicted from the premises on the ground that his tenancy having been terminated, he was in unauthorised occupation thereof. On September 23, 1966, the Competent Authority passed an order asking the petitioner to vacate the premises within one month of the date of the service of the order, on the ground stated in the show cause notice. The order purports to be passed under 'sub -section (') of section 53A' of the Act.
(3.) THE petitioner filed an appeal to the State Government against that order, under Section 58C of the Act. The appeal was dismissed on September 12, 1967 by an order which states that the petitioner had constructed an unauthorised structure of galvanised iron -sheets between two blocks of the Housing Colony, that he had done electrical wiring in the unauthorised structure, that he was running a grain and grocery shop in another shed constructed by him behind the tenement allotted to him, and that calling himself a social worker he was carrying on an agitation against the Board asking people not to pay rent and electricity charges due to the Board. The order further states that when the petitioner was called upon to remove the unauthorised structure, rather than do so he gave it a permanent shape by plastering it and that, in his capacity as the President of the Maharashtra Talim Islam Committee, he stated that the shed was being used for the benefit of the Muslim residents of the Colony. The appellate order concludes by saying that the Director of Anti -Corruption and Prohibition Bureau had given information on July 19, 1965 that the petitioner earned his living by conducting a Bidi shop in front of his tenement and that thereby he had violated the agreement of tenancy.;