Mumbai: A city civil court set aside an eviction order from a Marine Drive flat against a 48-year-old govt doctor, ruling that eviction authorities must record a summary of evidence and provide occupants an opportunity to be heard or adduce evidence before directing them to vacate public premises. The doctor was also ordered to pay Rs 37.22 lakh toward penal rent and outstanding dues.
Patil claimed that continued residence in Mumbai was necessary due to family circumstances and medical treatment.
Dr Prashant Patil, earlier posted at RA Podar Medical College and subsequently transferred to Jalgaon, told the court that he occupied the flat along with his wife, two children, and his mother, who is diagnosed with schizophrenia and is undergoing treatment at JJ Hospital.
Patil moved the civil court in April 2025 against the principal secretary, medical education and drugs department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and the public works department (PWD). Advocates KN Kandekar and Dinesh Bhosale, appearing for Patil, argued that after filing the reply, he could not remain present on March 13 and March 20. The defence argued that Patil appeared again on March 24 and requested an opportunity of hearing, but the authority proceeded to pass the eviction order without considering the request.
Because the eviction order was passed without granting a fair and proper opportunity, instead, the court held that interference was necessary. The court did not decide whether Patil was an unauthorized occupant. Noting that the original proceedings violated the principles of natural justice, principal judge Arvind T Wankhede set aside the eviction order and directed that the matter be heard again by the competent authority. The lawyers argued that the proceedings were concluded within about a month and that the principles of natural justice were breached. The court rejected the argument that the willingness to vacate could be treated as an unconditional ground for eviction. The court also noted that Patil had claimed that no govt accommodation was occupied at Jalgaon and that house rent allowance was being deducted from his salary.
The judge noted that the willingness was linked to the result of proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.