Summary
The Court declined to stop a slum rehabilitation scheme pending adjudication of the appellants’ disputed leasehold rights. Comparative convenience and the slum dwellers’ need for rehabilitation favoured continuation, while any established loss could be compensated. The Court left title and lease issues for the civil suit, set aside High Court observations affecting the merits, and permitted the appellants to seek supported protective relief before the trial court.
Issues
- Whether redevelopment should be restrained pending the civil suit concerning alleged leasehold rights.
- How the appellants’ disputed rights should be protected while rehabilitation continued.
Held
- The existence and validity of the alleged lease involved disputed evidence and legal questions for trial. Neither those merits nor the effect of the earlier committee order were decided in these proceedings. (¶¶ 22, 24, 26, 27)
- Equitable protection requires a prima facie basis, comparative convenience and irreparable injury. The beneficial purpose of slum rehabilitation and its effect on shelter and livelihood must also inform the balance. (¶¶ 25, 28)
- The scheme had been delayed for more than eight years and demolition and relocation had begun. The appellants could be compensated if successful; they had not established irreparable injury warranting interruption of the scheme. (¶¶ 29, 30)
- The Court declined to restrain disposal of half the free saleable area without material establishing the alleged loss. The appellants could seek appropriate supported relief and implead necessary parties in the pending civil suit, for consideration in accordance with law. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33)
- High Court observations affecting the merits were set aside. The Supreme Court’s observations likewise would not prejudice adjudication of the suit on merits. (¶ 34)
Result
Appeal disposed of permitting redevelopment to continue, preserving the civil suit and liberty to seek appropriate relief there. Contempt petition and pending applications disposed of.