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 CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 263 OF 2008 REVN. APPLICATION NO. 263 OF 2008 REVN. APPLICATION NO. 263 OF 2008 Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. ... Petitioner v/s The General Manager Tata Mills Ltd. & ors. ... Respondents Mr.F.E.D’Vitre with Mr.Chirag Balsara and Mr.Farhan Dubash i/by Desai & Diwanji for the applicants. Mr.Heralal Thacker i/by Joseph Fernandes for respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 23RD JULY, 2008 23RD JULY, 2008 23RD JULY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The applicants have challenged the order passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, in Misc. Appeal No.68 of 2004. By this order the Principal Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants herein. The appellate authority acting under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 has held that the order passed by the Estate Officer evicting the appellant from the premises was illegal. He has also passed the order requiring the payment of Rs.51,21,488/- as damages for unauthorised occupation of the premises from 16.11.2002 to 6.7.2004 at the rate of Rs.26/- per 2 square feet per month. 2. A perusal of the order of the appellate authority indicates that the appellate authority has merely confirmed the order of the Estate Officer without considering the submissions of the appellants. In my opinion, the order impugned in this application cannot be sustained especially in view of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.368 of 2008. The learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the appellate authority must not act as a mere "rubber stamp" but must consider the arguments submitted by the parties and arrive at its own decision. The order impugned does not indicate that the appellate authority has applied its mind independently for assessing the arguments raised by either parties before him. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Supreme Court in the case of S.N.Mukherjee v/s Union S.N.Mukherjee v/s Union S.N.Mukherjee v/s Union of of of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984, India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984, India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984, has held that when the appellate or revisional authority affirms an order, it need not give separate reasons if the appellate authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge. These observations of the Supreme Court do not in any manner preclude the 3 appellate authority from considering the arguments of the contesting parties, before it concludes that the impugned order needs to be affirmed. No doubt, separate reasons may not be necessary as observed by the Supreme Court if the appellate authority agrees with the reasons. The order must certainly disclose that the appellate authority has applied its mind to all the submissions raised on behalf of the parties before it and has then arrived at the conclusion that it should affirm the order impugned as it concurs with the reasons given in the impugned order. It is conceivable that the appellate authority could sustain the order, but for different reasons. Therefore, the order should reflect the application of an independent mind for upholding the impugned order. 4. In the present case, the order does not disclose whether the appellate authority affirms the findings of the Estate Officer for the same reasons or some other reasons. In my view, therefore, such a conduct cannot be sustained and must be set aside. 5. Mr.Thacker, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the N.T.C. has already executed the order and taken possession of a certain portion of the land i.e. the area of 5694.35 sq.ft. The remaining 4304.65 4 sq.ft. have not been secured by the N.T.C. and therefore the N.T.C. would approach the City Survey Department for admeasuring the land. He also submits that, in the event the matter is to be remanded to the appellate authority, the applicant be directed to deposit a further sum in respect of the damages payable by it. 6. Mr.D’Vitre, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already deposited a sum of Rs.4 lacs in the City Civil Court which amount is still lying in the Court. He submits, therefore, that there is no need to deposit any further amount while the appeal is being heard. Besides this, Mr.D’Vitre submits that the possession of the property is still retained with the revision applicant and the applicant’s lock continues to be on the gate of the premises. 7. In my opinion, the following order will meet the ends of justice:- (i) The order impugned is set aside. (ii) Misc.Appeal No.68 of 2004 and Misc. Appeal No.73 of 2004 are remanded for being heard afresh by the Principal Judge, City 5 Civil Court, Mumbai. (iii) The revision applicant will deposit an amount of Rs.6 lacs in the City Civil Court within a period of two weeks from today. (iv) The appeals will be heard only if such deposit is made. (v) The parties shall maintain status-quo in respect of the property as of today. (vi) Appeals expedited. (vii) Appeals to be disposed of preferably within a period of three months from today.