1 HIGH COURT OF JURISDICTION AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 212 OF 2009 H.A. Qureshi & Ors. ... Applicants. Vs. The Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 213 OF 2009 Miss. Farid Noor Mohammad & Ors. ... Applicants. Vs. The Union of India and Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. M.P. Vashi Sr.Counsel i/b M/s M.P. Vashi & Asso. for the Applicants. Mr. Samant A.N. for the Respondents. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. DATED : 17TH JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2 Both the Revision Applications take exception to separate orders passed by the learned Judge of City Civil Court, Mumbai in a Misc. Appeal No.34 of 2004 and Misc. Appeal No. 33 of 2004 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 .The applicants in Revision Application No. 212 of 2009 are the original allottees of the 2 respondent No.1 of the pitches whereas the applicants in Revision Application No. 213 of 2009 are the legal representatives of the original allottees of pitches allotted by the respondent No.1. Except the above facts, other facts being similar, I propose to dispose of both Civil Revision Applications by this common order. 3 The subject matter of the proceedings are, various open places designated as Teh Bazari, Pitch numbers at Byculla (East) Railway Station. These pitches were allotted to the applicants in Revision Application No. 212 of 2009 and predecessors in title of the applicants in Revision Application No. 213 of 2009, on license basis by the respondent No.1. The applicants/predecessors in title of the applicants have erected stalls and they are selling goods and other materials at the Railway station. 4 By the notice dated 3rd December, 2002, the first respondent revoked the said licenses on the grounds that the Central Railway administration requires the said railway land outside the Byculla Railway Station (East) for the purposes of widening of the existing platform No.4, to open a pay and park cycle cum scooter stand, and that the space is required for in the station circulating area, for facilitating the free flow of movements of commuters in the circulating area, in the station 3 premises. Since the applicants/predecessors in title of the applicants did not comply with the notices, the eviction processes were initiated before the respondent No.2 by issuing notice under section 4 of the said Act. 5 The respondent No.2 by his separate orders dated 27th February, 2003 directed applicants to vacate the said stalls. The said individual orders were challenged by filing two Misc. Application No. 33 of 2004 and Misc. Application No.34 of 2004 before the City Civil Court, Mumbai. The City Civil Court by the separate orders dismissed the appeals and therefore, present Revisions are filed. 6 Mr. Vashi learned Sr. counsel appearing for the applicants in both the revisions made three submissions, firstly, the notices revoking the licenses do not describe the premises in possession of individual applicant correctly, secondly, he challenged the authority of the officer who revoked the license and thirdly, he submitted that the notices are issued in the name of dead persons. Mr. Vashi also submitted that his request for alternative premises neither considered nor granted by the City Civil Court. Mr. Vashi learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgment of the Tripura High Court in case of Amulya Chandra Sutradhar and another Vs. Estate Officer reported in AIR 1964 Tripura 9 (V 51 C 5). 4 7 Mr. Samant learned counsel for the respondent No.1 per contra supported the judgment passed by the City Civil Court. He submitted that initially the applicants/predecessors in title of the applicants were allotted the pitches and thereafter the stalls were erected by the respective allottees, therefore, no fault can be found in the description of the property in the notice for revocation of the licenses. He submitted that the license is revoked by the competent authority under the relevant notification. Regarding objection that the notices were issued to the dead persons, he submitted that even legal representatives of the original allottees/present applicants/occupants were also issued notices and therefore, no fault can be found. 8 Having heard the arguments of the respective counsel and having gone through the compilations of both the revisions including the impugned orders and the ratio of the case cited by Mr. Vashi, I find no merit in Revisions. Annextured at Exhbit-D i.e. Notice of revocation of licenses in Revision Application No. 212 of 2009, describes the premises as follows: “DA: Schedule Tehbazari pitch No.1.... shown in red in drg. Attached at Byculla Rly. Station (Location of Premises.)” 5 9 The learned single judge of the Tripura High Court in Amulya Chandra Sutradhar and another (supra) held that the proceedings for eviction are illegal if the premises are not described properly. The Tripura High Court in para 14 also observed that the description of the property in the first notice must not be indefinite. The correct description is necessary for the reasons that if a person, is to be evicted from any premises in his possession he must be told clearly by the description in the notice what the premises are and the person in possession only after knowing what the premises are can show cause against such eviction. In my view, the ratio of the judgment is that the description of the property should not be indefinite. In the present case, the premises is described by pitch Number and it was also shown in red colour in the drawing attached to the Notice. Thus, there cannot be confusion regarding the identity of the properties for which the respective applicants are sought to be evicted. In that view of the matter, I find that, the notice revoking license sufficiently describes the premises in possession of respective applicants. Thus, I find no substance in the first objection. 10 The second objection of Mr. Vashi learned counsel is about competency of the person signing notices for the revocation of the license. He submitted that the licenses are revoked by the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Works), Byculla South. According to learned 6 counsel the competent officer to revoke the licenses is the Senior Divisional Officer (Works). 11 I have perused original licenses granted in favour of the applicants/predecessors in title of the applicants. These licenses were signed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Works). In my view, the person competent to grant the license, also competent to revoke the same. I find no substance in the submission of learned counsel in this regard. 12 The third submission of Mr. Vashi is that the notices of eviction were issued in the names of the dead persons who are the applicants in Revision Application No. 213 of 2009. Learned counsel Mr. Samant in this regard pointed out that the applicants in Revision Application No.213 of 2009 who are the present occupants of the respective pitches are also issued with notices of eviction though initially notices were issued to their predecessors in title. This position was not disputed by the learned counsel Mr. Vashi. In that view of the matter, the third objection also without any substance. 13 Now I will consider learned counsel Mr. Vashi’s submission about alternative premises. He submitted that respondent No.2 allotted alternative premises to the similarly situated persons and therefore 7 present applicants should be treated on par with them and be given alternative premises. Mr. Samant in this regard submitted that if the applicants make representation for alternate accommodation, said representation will be considered sympathetically in accordance with law. The statement of Mr. Samant is accepted. 14 In the above facts and circumstances, I pass the following order:- i) Both the Civil Revision Applications are dismissed. However, the applicants in both the revision applications are at liberty to make an individual representations to the respondent No.1 with a request for alternative premises within a period of six weeks from today. In the event of applicants making above said representations, the respondent No.1 shall decide the same sympathetically and in accordance with the relevant policy within a period of two months thereafter. ii) Both the parties shall maintain status-quo in respect of their stalls for the period of four months from today. [ R.V. MORE, J.]