1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9483 OF 2009 Mrs. Indira wd/o Panju Algar Naidu & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. S.K. Dubey for the petitioners. Mr. Kuldeep A. Patil for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 20 February 2009 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai rejecting the petitioners’ appeal bearing Misc. Appeal No.48 of 2004 filed under the provisions of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). 3. The petitioners together are in occupation of an area admeasuring 79.74 sq. ms. in “G” Block of Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) of survey no.4 (for short “the suit premises”). A notice under the Act was issued to the petitioners for eviction on the ground that they were 2 encroachers and in unauthorised occupation of the government property falling within the jurisdiction of the M.M.R.D.A. which is a special planning authority for Bandra- Kurla Complex. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they are in occupation of the suit premises prior to 1 January 1995 and as per the government policy, the persons in occupation of slums on or before 1 January 1995 are protected. The petitioners therefore could not be evicted from the suit premises as they were in occupation of the suit premises which are slums since prior to 1 January 1995. The evidence produced by the petitioners in the enquiry was carefully scrutinised by the Estate Officer who came to the conclusion that the petitioners had not established that they were in occupation of the suit premises prior to 1 January 1995. He accordingly passed the orders for eviction. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the City Civil Court, Mumbai was dismissed confirming the finding of the Estate Officer that the petitioners were not in occupation of the suit premises prior to 1 January 1995. 5. Before me, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the finding recorded by the Estate Officer and the City 3 Civil Court that they were not in possession of the suit premises prior to 1 January 1995 was perverse requiring interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In my view, the concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below is a possible finding of fact and cannot be said to be in any way perverse. In the circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 6. Counsel invited my attention to findings on point nos.4 and 8 of the order of the Estate Officer and submitted that the said findings were perverse. The petitioners had produced before the Estate Officer voters’ identity card issued by the Election Commission on 21 November 1994. Counsel submitted that the Estate Officer and the Appellate Court, therefore, ought to have held that the petitioners were in occupation of the suit premises prior to 1 January 1995. The suit premises are situated in Bandra-Kurla Complex and not in Shastri Nagar Zopadpatti. The address shown on the voters’ identity card of the petitioners is not of Bandra-Kurla Complex but of a nearby area, namely Shastri Nagar Zopadpatti. In my view, the Estate Officer was right in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners were residents of Shastri Nagar 4 Zopadpatti and not of the suit premises which are situated in Bandra-Kurla Complex. According to the petitioners, they had applied for change of address mentioned in the voters’ identity card. However, the application does not bear the date on which the application for change of address was made. There is nothing on record to show when was the application was made for change of address whether it was made before 1 January 1995, and what was the order passed on the application. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioners had applied for change of address prior to 1 January 1995 and of any order passed thereon, it cannot be said that the decision of the Estate Officer and confirmed by the City Civil Court is in any way perverse. 7. By an order dated 10 June 2010, the petitioners were granted time to file compilation of documents (containing application and acknowledgment of the alleged application made to the election officer). Till today, the compilation is not filed. 8. For these reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)