bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7747 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7747 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7747 OF 2008 Citibank N.A. ... Petitioner v/s Air India Ltd. & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Navroz Seervai with Mr.Cyrus Ardeshir, Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar i/by M/s.Kanga & Co. for the petitioner. Ms.Ranjana Parikh for the respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 12TH DECEMBER, 2008 12TH DECEMBER, 2008 12TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the appellate authority under the Public Premises Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appellate authority has not considered any of its arguments advanced and, therefore, the order requires reconsideration. 2. Undisputedly, the petitioner bank entered into an agreement on 24.6.1991 with Air India which is a leave and licence agreement with respect to an area admeasuring 824.78 sq.ft. on the ground floor of the 2 Air India Building at Nariman Point, Mumbai. Thereafter, according to the Bank, additional premises admeasuring approximately 3000 sq.ft. were offered by the Air India to the Bank in 1994. The Bank contends that, based on the letter dated 11.3.1994 it accepted the offer made and moved into those premises which were in addition to the 824.78 sq.ft. already held by the Bank in the Air India building. 3. A notice was issued by the Air India on 14.2.1995 terminating the occupation of the Bank in their premises for reasons of security in view of the the bomb blasts which shook Mumbai on 12.3.1993. However, the Bank continued in the premises. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 19.4.1999 was issued to the Bank requiring them to show cause as to why they should not be evicted. Two reasons for eviction were mentioned: (i) that Air India requires the premises for their own use and occupation; and (ii) for security reasons. 4. Evidence was led before the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer has concluded that the premises were required for Air India and that the Bank should be evicted, especially for the security reasons. 5. The appellate authority has confirmed the view taken 3 by the Estate Officer. The appellate authority has referred to the order of this Court in Writ Petition Writ Petition Writ Petition No.4911 No.4911 No.4911 of 2000, dated 15.11.2000 in the case of of 2000, dated 15.11.2000 in the case of of 2000, dated 15.11.2000 in the case of Ballarpur Ballarpur Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v/s Air India Ltd. & anr. Industries Ltd. v/s Air India Ltd. & anr. Industries Ltd. v/s Air India Ltd. & anr. 6. In the aforesaid order, the question arose as to whether Air India had validly terminated the licence in favour of the Ballarpur Industries Ltd. which was housed in the Air India building at Nariman Point. The learned Judge has observed that, "Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the first ground regarding increase in the staff is not made out, in the case of the clear statement that was made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that for security purpose the respondents does not want to continue anybody other than the respondent to occupy their building at Nariman Point and therefore action has been initiated against everybody who is occupying the building. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the grounds mentioned by the respondent. It cannot be denied that there was a bomb blast in the building of the respondent and that due to that bomb blast the respondent is bound to be concerned about its security and as a measure of security if the respondent decides that the building should be occupied exclusively by the respondent and all other persons and organisations who are occupying that building should be evicted from that building, in my opinion, it would be a sufficient ground for evicting other occupants." 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to distinguish this case by contending that the order was 4 passed at the stage of admission when the petition was dismissed in limine. He submits that the facts in the present case are not similar. According to him, the very fact that Air India invited the Bank to occupy the additional 3000 and odd sq.ft. even after the bomb blast, indicates that security was never an issue. He submits that, had the bank occupied those premises before the bomb blasts, Air India could possibly rely on the order in the Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (supra) case. He further submits that the question of promissory estoppel has not been dealt with by the appellate authority and, therefore, the case requires reconsideration. 8. It is true that an order passed at the stage of admission may not be binding on this Court. However, the order has been passed by another learned Single Judge in respect of the Air India building against a Company which was evicted for the same reasons as in the present case. I agree with the same. There is no doubt that the issue of security is of paramount importance and there is evidence on record to indicate this. The Bank was occupying 824 sq.ft. before the bomb blasts and therefore, Air India was well within its rights to evict the respondent Bank for this reason. On evidence it has been established that for reasons of security all 5 the tenancies/licences of all the occupants of the building have been terminated. The issue of security cannot relate to only a part of the building. Therefore, in my opinion, no fault can be found for evicting the Bank from the premises. 9. Assuming Air India had invited the Bank to occupy the space in 1994, the issue regarding security still survived even in 1999 when Air India terminated the licence issued the eviction notice. The learned advocate for Air India has pointed out the decision to house all the offices of Air India which are spread across the city in one central place i.e. the Air India building. This is found to be a bonafide reason for eviction, both by the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority. There is evidence on record establishing this fact. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Apart from this, the question whether the Air India was a licensor or a landlord, cannot be in issue as admittedly the Citibank was in possession of the premises admeasuring 824 sq.ft. in view of the agreement dated 24.6.1991, which is a leave and licence agreement. The occupation of the other premises admeasuring approximately 3000 sq.ft. was on the same 6 terms and conditions and, therefore, the argument that the petitioner is a tenant would not survive. 11. The issue of promissory estoppel, in my opinion, does not arise at all. The petitioner was put in possession as a licencee and the licence could be terminated in accordance with law as done in the present case. 12. Writ petition rejected. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a stay of this order. The order is stayed for a period of 12 weeks from today.