vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4417 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4417 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4417 OF 2008 Suresh Narayan Kadam & Ors. ... Petitioners v/s. Central Bank of India & Ors. ... Respondents. a/w WRIT PETITION NO.5589 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5589 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5589 OF 2008 Mahadev B. Durge & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Central Bank of India & Anr. ... Respondent Mr.Mihir Desai for Petitioner in WP No.4417/2008 Mr.Bhavesh Parmar for Petitioner in WP No.5580/2008 Mr.Rohit Kapadia i/b Mr.Rajesh L. Shethia for Respondent in both petitions CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 19, 2008 DECEMBER 19, 2008 DECEMBER 19, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . These petitions have been filed by the class IV employees of the Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’). The petitioners are presently working as sub-staff in various departments and branches of the bank. By the impugned orders, the petitioners have been directed to vacate the premises which have been allotted to them by the bank. They have further been directed to pay mesne profits @Rs.5000/- per month. : 2 : 2. The bank acquired buildings built by MHADA for the lower income group in 1982. These buildings were used to provide accommodation to the Bank’s employees. The Bank acquired 10 such buildings each housing 20 employees. The land on which the buildings were erected was leased to the Bank by MHADA under certain terms and conditions. Circulars were issued by the Bank on 15.9.1982 and 25.9.1983 delineating the policy for allotting the flats to its employees. Class IV employees have been allotted residential quarters in these buildings in the complex known as Samata Nagar, Kandivli, Mumbai. From 1997 onwards some of thee class IV employees have retired or resigned or ceased to be in employment for one reason or the other. As a result, five buildings are vacant out of the 10 available for housing the employees. No new allotments were made from 1997 onwards. Admittedly, today there are about 63 employees who are still occupying these quarters, most of whom are the Petitioners before me. 3. On 15.6.2007, the Bank released a proposal for redevelopment of the buildings at Samata Nagar which were built on land leased to the Bank by MHADA. In December, 2007, eviction notices were issued u/s 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (for short, ‘Public Premises Act’) to the employees along with directions for payment of compensation of : 3 : Rs.15,000/- per month with interest, in case of failure to vacate the premises. 4. Proceedings commenced before the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act for eviction. The Estate Officer accepted the contentions of the Bank and held that the Petitioners were not entitled to continue in the premises. It was held that the Bank’s decision to evict the petitioners could not be called in question as the Bank required the premises for its own use. The Estate Officer further directed the employees to pay Rs.5,280/- per month from 15.6.2007 as the mesne profits till the possession of the premises was handed over. 5. Being aggrieved by the decision, the petitioners preferred appeals before the appellate authority under the Public Premises Act. The appellate authority confirmed the view taken by the Estate Officer and hence these petitions. 6. The principal contentions raised on behalf of the learned advocates for the petitioners in both these petitions are: (i) MHADA had leased the land to the Bank for building residential quarters for class IV employees (ii) the premises were part of the conditions of service of the class IV employees which could not be taken away by issuing a quit notice; (iii) the purpose : 4 : for which the Bank required vacant buildings was for demolishing them in order to build new buildings for housing their managerial staff; and (iv) the notice for eviction did not spell out the reasons for evicting the petitioners. 7. An affidavit has been filed by Petitioner No.8 in Writ Petition No.5589 of 2008 to contend that the Government has directed the MHADA to stay any redevelopment of the land leased to the Bank for housing its employees. While arguing the matter, Mr.Parmar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5589 of 2008 had submitted that this document had been issued and furnished to the Petitioners on making an application under the Right to Information Act. However, by the affidavit dated 15.12.2008, the affiant has apologised for the wrong statement made in Court on his behalf. He has stated that he obtained a copy of the letter from an M.L.A. who had written to the government regarding the demolition of the structures. Significantly, although such a letter has been issued by the Government, the Bank was not aware of the same. 8. Mr.Kapadia, learned counsel for the respondent Bank, has submitted that the land was leased by the MHADA to the Bank on which MHADA had constructed 10 : 5 : buildings. The Bank purchased these buildings for housing its employees. He points out that the allotment of the premises to class IV employees was not a condition of service but an indulgence shown by the Bank towards its employees. He submits that out of 1100 sub staff employed in Mumbai by the bank, only 63 are housed in those quarters today. The learned advocate points out that the circular issued on 15.9.1982 speaks about the fact that the allotment of the residential quarters is not a condition of service of the employees nor is any vested right created in the staff members. The Bank had reserved its right to withdraw the facility as and when required. The learned Counsel then points out that the show-cause notice clearly mentions that the eviction is to be effected since the bank required the premises for its own use i.e. for housing the managerial staff of the bank. The learned counsel points out that the sub staff are not normally transferred and, therefore, they could easily secure their own accommodation within the area of Greater Mumbai. The managerial staff on the other hand is transferred from various places all over India for short durations making it difficult for them to acquire residences at short notice. 9. The learned counsel further points out that the Rules of allotment of flats clearly mention that the flats would be allotted at the absolute discretion of : 6 : the management. On allotment of these flats, each sub staff had to give an irrevocable undertaking that he would not claim any house rent allowance. The Bank had reserved its right to shift the sub staff to another flat in the same premises or to ask him to vacate the accommodation without assigning any reasons or providing any other flat. The circular of 25.9.1983 which has been relied on modifies the earlier housing policy, by reserving the Bank’s right to cancel/withdraw the allotment of the residential quarters immediately, if it was of the view that the flats were required by it. The learned counsel then points out that on 16.8.2007 one of the petitioners had while submitting his defence before the Estate Officer conceded that the allotment was on a purely temporary basis. 10. Several adjournments were granted to the parties in order to negotiate a settlement since only 63 members of the sub staff were residing in the residential quarters at Samata Nagar. However, the parties failed to arrive at any settlement and, therefore, the petitions were heard finally at the stage of admission. 11. On going through the impugned judgment of the appellate authority, I find that it does not contain any infirmities requiring the interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The : 7 : appellate authority has considered all the issues raised by the petitioners in these petitions. It has found that the Bank has a bonafide requirement of the premises for its own use. It has also held that the petitioners were in unauthorised possession of the premises. Further it has confirmed the order of the Estate Officer assessing the damages, as reasonable. 12. The basic issue in these petitions is whether the land which was allotted by MHADA to the Bank was available to it for housing the sub staff or class IV category of employees only. There is no material on record to indicate that the land was leased to the Bank by MHADA only for this purpose. It appears from the documents on record that the land was leased on 29.7.1994 by MHADA to the Bank. A perusal of the lease deed which is placed on record does not contain any condition that the land would be used only for the purpose of building residential quarters for the class IV employees. One of the covenants states that the land and the tenaments constructed on it shall be used only for the purposes of residence of the employees of the Bank as service quarters and for no other purpose. The lease deed does not indicate that the word "employees" used in the deed is confined only to the class IV employees. The circular dated 15.9.1982 issued by the bank only mentions that the bank had purchased 200 : 8 : tenaments under the Middle Income Group housing scheme of the Bombay Housing and Area Development board for allotment of the residential quarters to the sub staff working in the jurisdiction of the Central Office, Bombay Main office and Bombay Metropolitan region. However, that circular by itself cannot mean that the Bank could not change the use of the land to the extent that employees other than the sub staff could be housed in the residential quarters. 13. Mr.Parmar, appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5589 of 2008, has contended that the Bank had failed to produce certain documents namely the letters dated 20.8.1982 and 20.9.1982 which according to the petitioners indicate that MHADA allotted or leased the land only for the purposes of housing the class IV employees of the Bank. He has submitted that an application was made before the Estate Officer for the production of these letters. However, the Bank failed to produce these letters and therefore, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn. According to him, there is a reference to these letters in the lease deed of 1994 and therefore, these were vital documents which had been suppressed by the Bank. However, as pointed out by Mr.Kapadia in his cross-examination, Mahadev Durge i.e. Petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.5589 of 2008 has admitted that these letters dated 20.8.1982 and : 9 : 20.9.1982 had not been read by him personally, but that his son had read them out to him. Thus, obviously, the letters could not have been read unless the petitioners had copies of those letters in their possession. 14. Mr.Desai, appearing for the petitioners, in Writ Petition No.4417 of 2008 has submitted that the lease deed did not permit the Bank to rebuild the structures in a manner which was different from the original structures. He submits that the term "rebuild" must mean that the buildings which were in a dilapidated condition could be rebuilt exactly as the original building. According to the learned advocate, the buildings were now being demolished would be rebuilt in a manner so that there would be larger tenaments, but fewer in number. He has also pointed out that the notice of eviction did not mention any grounds for evicting the class IV employees. 15. Mr.Desai also relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Minoo Framroze Balsara v/s. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1992 Bom 375. In this judgment, it has been observed that the Estate Officer must consider whether the noticee is in unauthorised occupation of the public premises and whether he should be evicted. It has been held thus: : 10 : 35. Under Section 5 the Estate Officer must consider the cause that is shown by the addressee. Plainly, he must consider the addressee’s case on both grounds, viz. whether he is in unauthorised occupation of public premises and whether he should be evicted. Even if he finds that the addressee is in unauthorised occupation, the Estate Officer is not obliged to make an order of eviction; he ‘may’ make it. It is, therefore, that he has to consider whether the addressee should be evicted. He is obliged, if he makes an order of eviction, to record his reasons. The Estate Officer’s order must, therefore, state why he is satisfied that the addressee is in unauthorised occupation of public premises and why he should be evicted therefrom. The validity of the Estate Officer’s conclusions would be tested in appeal, which is before a District Judge or equivalent judicial officer. Mr.Desai submits that the Estate Officer’s order lacks these two ingredients and, therefore, the petitions should be allowed. As against this, Mr.Kapadia points out that the judgment in Minoo Framroze Balsara’s case (supra) notes that arguments have not been advanced on the facts of the petitions and appeals before the Court. He submits that in the facts of the present case, the Estate Officer’s orders cannot be faulted as he has held that the Petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of the premises after the eviction notices were issued to them and he has also held on the basis of the evidence led before him that the bank requires the premises for its own bonafide use i.e. for housing its managerial staff. : 11 : 16. In my view, the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity as both the parties below have found that the Bank require the premises for their own use in order to house their managerial staff and had, therefore, established that the eviction was for the bonafide use of the land for themselves. 17. Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. 18. The learned advocate for the Petitioners seek a reasonable time to vacate the premises. Accordingly, the petitioners shall vacate the premises by 31.1.2009. 19. It must be noted here that the petitioners were insisting that the bank should grant all the 63 members of the sub-staff loans to the tune of Rs.7 lakhs each, irrespective of their dates of retirement. The bank has stated that this was not possible but it was willing to consider each case of the 63 employees, individually. Mr.Kapadia states on instructions that the existing scheme for loans which has been in vogue from 20.8.2008 will continue for a period of two months after 31.1.2009.