IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 8730 OF 2007 Ram Arjun Palav ... Petitioner. Vs. Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. E.A.Sasi for the petitioner. Mr. S.R.Rajguru with R.C.Master for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : February 8, 2008. : February 8, 2008. : February 8, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent and heard finally. 3. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 17.10.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay dismissing the Appeal of the petitioner, thereby confirming the Order dated 27.11.2005 passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Public Premises Act), ordering the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the disputed premises to respondents. 4. The petitioner is an employee of the Directorate General of Shipping, Union of India and he was allotted government accommodation of the disputed premises, as licensee, sometime in the year 1996. Upon surprise inspection by the respondent No.1, it was found that the petitioner had sublet the disputed premises to one Dr. Tiwari @ Rs. 2000/- per month. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice and by a memorandum dated 20th September, 1998, the license was terminated and the allotment of the petitioner came to be cancelled. The appeal preferred therefrom was also rejected by an order dated 3rd August, 2003 of the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner thereafter was issued a show cause notice under Section 4(2) (b) (ii) of the Public Premises Act for eviction of the disputed premises and an eviction order came to be passed against the petitioner, which was challenged by him in Appeal preferred before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court. The appeal of the petitioner was allowed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court and the said order of eviction was set aside. This was challenged by the respondents by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 529 of 2004 in this Court. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the writ petition liberty was granted to the Respondents to issue fresh show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act and the writ petition came to be withdrawn. 5. Accordingly, a fresh show cause notice dated 30th March, 2005 was issued and an Order of eviction dated 7.10.2005 came to be passed by the Office of the respondent No.1, which was challenged by the petitioner before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court by filing an appeal, which came to be rejected. It is this order, which is impugned in this writ petition. 6. The case of the petitioner was that there was no subletting of the premises and that Dr.Tiwari is his wife’s and in-laws’ family friend. It was contended that he was not aware of the telephone connection which was issued in the name of Dr. Tiwari and in any event, the same was cancelled and a new telephone connection was obtained in his name. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in so far as the inspection report is concerned, the petitioner was not aware of the same and that the inspection report could not be relied upon and form the basis to come to the conclusion that the premises was sub let. He has further contended that merely because Dr.Tiwari and his family were present at the disputed premises, it cannot be inferred that the premises was sublet. He has further invited my attention to a letter dated 8th July, 2002 in the writ petition to point out that at the relevant time when the inspection was carried out i.e. on 12.1.1998, there was no telephone connection and that the said telephone connection was installed on 25th August, 1998. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner did not get an opportunity to cross-examine the Inspector, who has prepared the inspection report and the other witnesses. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in case of MINOO BALSARA VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 1992 Bom. 375 to submit that the proceedings should be tried judiciously and that the authority must be prima facie satisfied that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of the disputed premises and that he should be evicted. 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that sufficient opportunity has been granted to the petitioner and there is sufficient material on record to show that the premises were sub let by the petitioner to Dr. Tiwari. Moreover the statements have been recorded and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and due process of law has been followed and that besides ration card, there are no other documents like correspondence etc. relied upon by the petitioner to show his occupation in the disputed premises. He has submitted that no affidavit of Dr.Tiwari was produced in support of his case. It is further submitted that in any event, once the order of cancellation of allotment has attained finality, the petitioner cannot reopen the issue relating to subletting. 8. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. Whilst there can be no two views on the principles in the case cited by the learned Counsel, the said decision, however, is of no assistance to him in the facts of the case in hand. Considering the material on record and satisfying themselves, the Estate Officer as well as the Learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the disputed premises after the cancellation of his allotment on account of subletting of the disputed premises and directed the petitioner to vacate the disputed premises. In view of the concurrent findings and even otherwise, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. 9. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks six months time to vacate the disputed premises. In my view a period of three months would suffice. Order accordingly, subject to usual undertaking being furnished by the petitioner within three weeks from today. [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]