Supreme Court directs State to vacate long‑held police occupation of two South Bombay flats within four months and pay arrears

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard the appeal against a Bombay High Court order which had rejected a writ petition seeking restoration of possession of two flats owned by private parties and occupied by the Police Department since 1940. The appeal arose from Civil Appeal No. 5098 of 2025 (arising from SLP (C) No. 31035 of 2024) and raised the question whether the High Court should have exercised writ jurisdiction and ordered return of possession where there was no written requisition or lease.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment dated 30 April 2024 and allowed the original writ petition. The Court observed that it was "not in dispute that the department [had] been occupying two flats as on date" and noted the State had not paid any rent since 2008. The bench directed the respondents to hand over "vacant and peaceful possession of both the flats" within four months and to pay arrears of rent accrued up to the date of handing over. The Court also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, present in Court, to file an affidavit undertaking that possession would be handed over within one week. The Court recorded that earlier interlocutory orders had asked the parties to explore settlement and had proposed three reasonable options to the State: pay market rent, purchase the property, or hand over vacant possession.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. There can be many contingencies in which the High Court may be justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction inspite of availability of an alternative remedy. This is one of those cases wherein the High Court should have readily exercised its writ jurisdiction. The constitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the party concerned. Injustice, whenever and wherever it takes place, should be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution."

Background

The dispute dated to circa 1940 when the predecessor‑owners voluntarily handed possession of Flat Nos. 11 and 12, 3rd floor, Amar Bhavan, Opera House, Mumbai, to the Police Department. The petitioners contended the occupation was by requisition for temporary police use; the State contested and said the occupation was permissive and amounted to a tenancy or licence under an oral arrangement, with modest monthly payments having been made historically. The petitioners alleged non‑payment of rent since January 2008 and sought a declaration that the respondents' continued occupation was unlawful and an order for immediate delivery of possession.

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding there was no written order of requisition and that the nature of occupation was disputed; it declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and granted the petitioners liberty to pursue appropriate remedies. The petitioners appealed to this Court. During Supreme Court proceedings the bench issued interim orders on 28 January and 3 March 2025 urging settlement and proposing three options for resolution. The Court recorded that two families of police officers were residing in the flats and that the historic monthly rent paid was nominal (reported at Rs.700 per flat in submissions). Finding no satisfactory response from the State to settlement proposals, the Supreme Court emphasised that requiring the petitioners to pursue a civil suit would amount to "adding insult to the injury" given the long occupation and delay, and exercised its constitutional jurisdiction.

The appeal was allowed, the High Court order was set aside, and the respondents were given four months to hand over possession with payment of arrears; the petitioners were granted relief sought in the writ petition. The Court discharged the Rule before the High Court and disposed of the appeal; the Registry was directed to accept the undertaking affidavit within one week.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No.5098 OF 2025 (Arising from SLP (C) No.31035 of 2024) Case Title: Neha Chandrakant Shroff & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Sujay Kantawala (counsel in earlier proceedings) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shreyas U. Lalit (learned counsel for State), Mr. Mohit Jadhav (Additional Government Pleader; appeared before the High Court)