Civil Appeal No 578 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 8111990 of the Bombay High Court in W P No 4497 of 1991
Ashok Desai N Serwai Dilip Udeshi PH Parekh and JP Pathak for the Appellants
UR Lalit KK Singhvi and Soli J Sorabjee AM Khanwilkar Ravinder Narain section Ganesh DN Misra and section Kachwaha SK Dholakia and AS Bhasme for the Respondents
KK Venugopal EC Agrawala Ashwini Kumar Ms Purnima Sethi and AV Pilli for the Applicant
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA J
This Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No 4497 of 1990
The High Court allowed the said writ petition and struck down a communication from the Bombay Municipal Corporation
respondent No 2 herein informing the petitioners in the said writ petition who are arrayed as respondents nos
3 to 13 before us that their application for permission to develop the property namely the land in question situated at Village Balkum near Thane was rejected in view of the representations submitted to the Government by the owners of chemical factories situated in the said village who are the appellantspetitioners herein that no building construction permission should be granted within a certain distance from the said factories
The petitioners in the Special Leave Petition are some of the said chemical factories
They were not joined in the writ petition as respondents and have prayed for leave to file the Special Leave Petition on the ground that the judgment adversely affects them and they are aggrieved by the same
Permission is granted
Leave is granted
Counsel heard
We find that appellants can be said to be parties aggrieved by the impugned judgment even if they are not regarded as necessary parties 252 in the writ petition
In the facts and circumstances of the case we find that there is no need to set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court at the instance of the appellants
The appellants are
however given liberty to file a review petition before the Bombay High Court for reviewing the impugned judgment within a period of four weeks from today
9 In our opinion it is proper that the entire controversy to which the judgment relates should be determined in the light of the submissions which may be made by the appellants
In these circumstances we direct that the review petition if filed shall be entertained by the Bombay High Court and the appellants will be given a hearing as if the matter were heard afresh as far as they are concerned
It is clarified that the hearing of the review application will not be confined to the normal grounds on which a review can be sought but the entire controversy will be regarded as open as between the appellants herein and the respondents
The interim order made by this Court on January 8 1991 will continue to remain in operation till the review petition is decided by the High Court
However it will be open for the High Court to vary or vacate the interim order on appropriate applications made to it by any of the parties or by any of the interveners here
If the review petition is not filed within the said period of four weeks the appeal shall stand dismissed and all interim orders passed by us shall be deemed to be vacated
In our opinion the review petition deserves to be disposed of with expedition and we would therefore request the High Court to dispose of the review petition if filed as aforestated within four months from today and in any event by the 30th September 1991
The matter shall now be placed before learned Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court for passing appropriate directions
The appeal is disposed of as aforestated with no order as to costs
VPR Appeal disposed of


Summary:
The Company Respondent No 3 entered into a contract of lease with the State Government for a period of one year and later it was extended for a further period of ten years
When proceedings were initiated on 1671952 to eject the Company the Company filed suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction
The trial Court holding that the Company did not become a pakka  tenant under Section 54vii of Part II of Act No 66 of 1950 in respect of the suit land and that the Company was a Government lessee under section 181 of the MP Land Revenue Code 1959 and was not an occupancy tenant under section 185 of the Code dismissed the suit
This judgment was affirmed by the High Court in First appeal observing that the land held by the Company under the lease was neither zamindari nor ryotwari land
Against that judgment the Company filed an appeal in this Court which was withdrawn in 1971
Subsequently the State entered into an agreement with the Company to grant a fresh lease for a period of ten years from 921971 subject to the payment of enhanced rent as agreed upon between the parities
Since the Company failed to pay the agreed rents and contravened the conditions of the lease proceedings were initiated under Section 1822i of the Code for eviction of the Company from the land in question
175 Eviction order was quashed by the High Court holding that the lease in question was not covered by section 181 of the Code and that the Company could not be evicted by the summary proceeding provided for under that section against which the appeal has been filed
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD 1
A Government lessee  is defined under the MP land Revenue Code 1959 as a person holding land from the State Government under section 181
178E 2
As per the provisions in section 181 of the MP Land Revenue Code 1959 whether or not the company has been holding the land in terms of the original lease or under the newly stipulated terms of the lease the Company has been holding the land from the State Government and it has never been an ordinary tenant as defined in the Madhya Bharat Act No 66 of 1950
Accordingly whether considered in term of sub section 1 or sub section 2 of section 181 the Company has been at all material times a Government lessee in respect of the land in question
179 G 180 A 3
It was in terms of sub section 2i of section 182 that the Additional Collector made his Order for eviction of the Company
The finding of the Additional Collector is a finding of fact based on evidence and is not liable to be questioned in these proceedings
Large amounts are due and payable by the Company as rent
In the circumstances the Additional Collector was well justified in having recourse to the proceeding prescribed under section 182 of the Code
180 F 181 A