JUDGMENT : S. S. Shinde, J. This Writ Petition takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 07/02/2019 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee, Mumbai Suburban, Mumbai in Appeal No.673 of 2018 filed by the Petitioner herein by which, the judgment and order dated 18/02/2016 passed in Appeal No.385 of 2015 by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Additional Collector (E&R) and the order dated 26/08/2015 passed by the Competent Authority i.e. the Deputy Collector (E&R), Malad directing the Appellant i.e. the Petitioner herein to vacate and hand over the permanent rehab tenement No.407 of Building No.2 of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme known as Kethan SRA Co-operative Housing Society Limited implemented on the plot bearing CTS No.838, 838/B 1 to 90, 841, 841/1 to 53, 58 and 63 of Village Malad, Taluka Andheri of Mumbai Suburban District within 7 days from the date of receipt of the communication of the said order, came to be confirmed. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of this Writ Petition can in brief be stated as under :- It is the case of the Petitioner that he is in use, occupation and possession of the premises bearing Flat No.407, Pushpak Building No.2, Khetan SRA CHS Ltd, Marwadi Chawl, Opp. Telephone Exchange, S V Road, Malad (West), Mumbai 400 064 (for short "the subject premises"). The Petitioner has acquired the subject premises from Respondent No.3 herein for valuable consideration. It is the case of the Petitioner that the occupants of Marwadi Chawl area has formed Respondent No.5 Society and submitted a proposal for development of area under the SRA Scheme. Respondent Nos. 3 herein came to be appointed as Developers for developing the said area. Subsequently Respondent No.4 also came to be appointed as Joint Developer. Accordingly, the area of Marwadi Chawl has been developed under the SRA Scheme where the rehab Buildings came to be constructed. It is also the case of the Petitioner that brother of Petitioner Mr. Jayendra Ramanlal Ashara purchased the subject premises from Respondent No.3 which was represented by Respondent No.3 as Saleable Component from his FSI and not from the rehab area/premises. It is stated that the subject premises originally belonged to one widow lady namely Kumudben Kanakrai Kothari and that she has expired and transferred the said premises to one trust namely Sadbhav Foundation Trust by executing the Deed of Assignment dated 06/02/2009. Mr. It is stated that the subject premises originally belonged to one widow lady namely Kumudben Kanakrai Kothari and that she has expired and transferred the said premises to one trust namely Sadbhav Foundation Trust by executing the Deed of Assignment dated 06/02/2009. Mr. Madhukar Sunderlal Sheth of Sadbhav Foundation Trust has executed a release deed on 24/12/2009 with Respondent No.3 in respect of the subject premises and has released the right in favour of the Developer. 3. Thereafter on the receipt of the letter dated 15/01/20012 from Controller (Encroachment Removal), Greater Mumbai proceeding for eviction of Petitioner herein from the subject premises has been initiated. A preliminary inquiry has been conducted by the office of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Eastern and Western Suburbs, SRA, Mumbai wherein it was revealed that the Petitioner herein is unauthorizedly occupying the subject premises in the building constructed under SRA Scheme. Respondent No.2 herein has issued eviction notice to the Petitioner dated 15/01/2012 and, after affording opportunity to the parties to plead their case and after perusal of the material on record, the Competent Authority has passed eviction order dated 26/08/2015 directing the Petitioner to vacate the subject premises within 7 days of the receipt of the said order. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 26/08/2015 passed by the Competent Authority, the Petitioner filed Appeal No. 385/2015 before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Additional Collector (Enc/Rem.) Mumbai. The Appellate Authority after considering the Petitioner's case concluded that the Petitioner is not hutment holder of the Scheme, and the developer of the scheme had no authority and right to sale the said tenement to the Petitioner's brother and that the said tenement is constructed for the eligible hutment holder and the Petitioner is not the eligible hutment holder and the developer cannot sale the tenement from the rehab component. The Appellate Authority therefore held that, the Petitioner's possession in the said rehab tenement is illegal and unauthorized and as such the Petitioner is liable for an eviction and the order passed by the Competent Authority is proper. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the Petitioner filed Appeal No.673 of 2018 before Respondent No.7 i.e. the Grievance Redressal Committee. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the Petitioner filed Appeal No.673 of 2018 before Respondent No.7 i.e. the Grievance Redressal Committee. Respondent No.7 after considering the case of the Petitioner and after appreciating the material on record reached to a conclusion that the subject premises i.e. tenement No.407 of building No.2 was not from the 72 tenements which were temporarily converted in to sale component on 02/03/2012 by the CEO, SRA till the vacation of unauthorized occupants from the 72 tenements, and that the said tenement No.507 is a rehab tenement which was allotted to Smt. Kumudben Kothari in lieu of her eligibility decided in the scheme who has sold/transferred the said rehab allotted tenement to Mr Madhukar Seth of said Trust in contravention of the statutory mandatory prohibition of section 3E Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act, 1971, (for short the said Act). The Committee further held that the said Mr. Madhukar Seth has illegally parted with possession of the said tenement to Respondent No.3 and thereafter Respondent No.3 has further illegally parted with possession of the said rehab tenement in favour of the Petitioner's brother and Petitioner. Respondent No. 7 Committee has accordingly dismissed the said Appeal No.673 of 2018 filed by the Petitioner by order dated 07/02/2019 which is taken exception to by way of this Writ Petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the brother of the Petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the subject premises from Respondent No.3 by paying valuable consideration to Respondent No.3. The Petitioner is in actual possession of the said flat and proof of the same has been produced on record. The Petitioner has produced on record the allotment letter dated 30/12/2009 issued by Respondent No.3 as also the allotment letter dated 19/04/2010 issued by Respondent No.4 in respect of the subject premises. It is the contention of the Petitioner that Respondent No.7 did not consider the said documents. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that the though Petitioner has filed Written Submissions as also the approved plan annexed thereof, the same has not been considered at all by Respondent No.7. It is the contention of the Petitioner that Respondent No.7 did not consider the said documents. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that the though Petitioner has filed Written Submissions as also the approved plan annexed thereof, the same has not been considered at all by Respondent No.7. It is also contended that Respondent No.7 did not consider the fact that Respondent No.3 has submitted the regularization proposal for conversion of the said 72 rehab tenements into sale tenements, and SRA has already approved the said regularization proposal of the Developer and converted the said area of 72 rehab component into sale component and said 72 tenements are treated to be sale tenements. It is submitted that though on similar facts and circumstances Respondent No.7 allowed the connected matters i.e. Appeal Nos.585 of 2018 and 594 of 2018, however, rejected the Petitioner's Appeal for no reason which caused injustice to the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the subject premises is purchased from saleable area of the rehab building which is permitted/granted by the SRA Authority. It is further submitted that Respondent No.4 i.e. M/s. Mundara Developers, has entered into joint venture from 2008 and hence they were well aware of the said sale agreement and other documents and the possession of the Petitioner. It is submitted that the subject premises has been purchased by the Petitioner's brother only after the assurance given by the associate of Respondent No.3 that, it is given from saleable component which is surplus tenement in the rehab building and that the Petitioner is paying electric charges & telephone charges to the concerned authorities in respect of subject premises, and possesses several documents in the name of the Petitioner on the address of subject premises. It is contended that the project is taken care of by both Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and hence they are jointly and equally liable for the same. It is submitted that Respondent No.7 has failed to consider the factual aspect and decide the issue relating to subject premises forming a part of saleable component which is a surplus tenement in the rehab building when the same was agitated by the Petitioner before Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is submitted that Respondent No.7 has failed to consider the factual aspect and decide the issue relating to subject premises forming a part of saleable component which is a surplus tenement in the rehab building when the same was agitated by the Petitioner before Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is further submitted that there is a dispute between Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4 regarding the said plot of the SRA Scheme and, Respondent No.4 was a consenting party and was knowing the illegal activities of Respondent No.3 and hence filed complaint against the Petitioner to pressurize Respondent No.3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner lastly contended that the impugned order passed by Respondent No.7 is without consideration of factual aspects and hence deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. The learned AGP and the learned counsel for Respondent - SRA support the impugned order passed by Respondent No.7-Committee and contended that there is no need to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below. They submitted that the Petitioner is an unauthorized person occupying the subject premises hence the notice issued under section 3E of the said Act is valid and legal. It is further submitted that Petitioner is not a part of the said SRA Scheme and, Respondent No.3 is not empowered to sell or assign the said rehab component flat to the Petitioner's brother or to the Petitioner, therefore the MOU executed between Respondent No.3 and the brother of the Petitioner is not valid and totally illegal. They lastly submitted that the documents produced by the Petitioner are not legal as the subject premises assigned for rehabilitation under SRA Scheme cannot be sold/assigned/gifted/transferred to any person. They lastly contended the Writ Petition deserves to be rejected. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have considered the rival contentions. It is an undisputed fact that the building and the subject premises are the rehab component of the said scheme. It appears that the Petitioner is not a part of the said SRA scheme. Though it is tried to contend that Respondent No.3 has executed MOU with the brother of the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 is not empowered to sell or assign the subject premises. Considering the provisions of Section 3E of the said Act, a flat and/or premises assigned for rehabilitation under SRA scheme cannot be sold/assigned/gifted/transferred to any person. Though it is tried to contend that Respondent No.3 has executed MOU with the brother of the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 is not empowered to sell or assign the subject premises. Considering the provisions of Section 3E of the said Act, a flat and/or premises assigned for rehabilitation under SRA scheme cannot be sold/assigned/gifted/transferred to any person. It is not in dispute that originally the subject premises assigned to one widow lady namely Kumudben Kanakrai Kothari. Thereafter she has expired and transferred the said premises to one trust namely Sadbhav Foundation Trust by executing the Deed of Assignment dated 06/02/2009. Mr. Madhukar Sunderlal Seth of Sadbhav Foundation Trust has executed a release deed on 24/12/2009 with Respondent No.3 in respect of the subject premises and has released the right in favour of the Developer. The acquisition of the said Madhukar Seth was itself unauthorized and illegal and therefore further transfer by the said Madhukar Seth to Respondent No.3 was also illegal. Though it is contended by the Petitioner that the brother of the Petitioner purchased the subject premises from Respondent No.3 for valuable consideration on the representation that the subject premises is a Saleable Component from his FSI and not from the rehab area/premises, Respondent No.3 was not empowered under the provisions of the said Act to assigned the subject premises in favour of the Petitioner's brother/the Petitioner. In the said context it would be apposite to refer to the provision of Section 3E of the said Act, which for the sake of ready reference reproduced herein under:- "3E. Restrictions on transfer of tenements :- (1) The tenements allotted to the persons under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme shall not be transferred by the allottee thereof by way of sale, gift, exchange, lease or otherwise for a period of first ten years commencing from the date of allotment of the tenement. Restrictions on transfer of tenements :- (1) The tenements allotted to the persons under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme shall not be transferred by the allottee thereof by way of sale, gift, exchange, lease or otherwise for a period of first ten years commencing from the date of allotment of the tenement. After the expiry of the said period of ten years, the allottee may, with the permission of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, transfer such tenement in accordance with the prescribed procedure." (2) If the tenement is transferred by the allottee in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) the Competent Authority shall, by order, direct the eviction of the person in possession of such tenement in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the order, and for the purpose of eviction, the Competent Authority may use or caused to be used such force as may be necessary. Provided that, before issuing any order under this sub-section, the Competent Authority shall give a reasonable opportunity to such person to show cause why he should not be evicted therefrom." 9. In the present case, Respondent No.3 by executing a MOU transferred the subject premises in favour of the brother of the Petitioner/the Petitioner before the expiry of 10 years as contemplated by Section 3E of the said Act, in fact Respondent No.3 is not empowered to do so. Respondent No.4 has submitted a reply and admitted that the subject premises was allotted to Mrs. Kumudben Kothari who was eligible occupant and as such transfer of said rehab tenement by the said Kumudben to another person i.e. Mr. Madhukar Sheth itself was illegal. The Competent Authority has rightly come to a conclusion that the possession and occupation by the Petitioner of the subject premises is illegal and she is required to be evicted from the said tenement. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the findings recorded by the Competent Authority. The Grievance Redressal Committee also did not deem it appropriate to interfere with the findings recorded by both the authorities below. 10. In my view, considering the concurrent findings recorded by the three authorities below, it cannot be said that the order of eviction passed by the Competent Authority is contrary to material/documents brought on record. The Grievance Redressal Committee also did not deem it appropriate to interfere with the findings recorded by both the authorities below. 10. In my view, considering the concurrent findings recorded by the three authorities below, it cannot be said that the order of eviction passed by the Competent Authority is contrary to material/documents brought on record. The Competent Authority acted diligently in issuing show cause notice and after considering the material on record rightly reached to a conclusion that the possession and occupation of the Petitioner is illegal and she is required to be evicted. Thus, I see no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner possesses several documents to show that she is in lawful occupation of the subject premises. The transferred of the subject premises before expiry of 10 years itself was illegal. Apart from this, considering the provisions of Section 3E of the said Act, in my opinion, there was no embargo on the competent authority to initiate an action under Section 3E of the said Act for an eviction of the Petitioner after issuance of the show cause notice. In my considered view, gross illegality has been committed in transferring the subject premises in favour of the brother of the Petitioner or Petitioner. The Grievance Rederessal Committee has rightly held that the Petitioner herein has not acquired any legal right to occupy the subject tenement from Respondent No.3. The Committee therefore did not deem it appropriate to interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner. This Writ Petition is therefore misconceived and the same is accordingly rejected. 11. Needless to observe that the Petitioner is free to avail of appropriate remedy against the developers and in case such remedy is availed by the Petitioner, the concerned forum is also free to decide the same in accordance with law.