:1: :1: :1: 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 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.505 OF 2008 Indian Society for Cultural Co-op. and Friendship .. Petitioners. Vs. Syndicate Bank and Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.U.J.Makhija i/b Mr.Anil Desai for the petitioners. Mr.Harihar Bhave a/w Ms.Manisha Paud for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have impugned the judgment and order dated 21st July, 2008 passed by the Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil Court by which Misc. Appeal No.40 of 2000 and Misc. Appeal No.45 of 2000 have been dismissed. These appeals arise from the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short "the Public Premises Act"). The public premises in question consists of entire fifth floor and two rooms on the fourth floor of five storeyed building, now known as "Syndicate Bank Building" (for short "the said building"). The said building is situated at Sir P.M.Road, Fort, Mumbai (for short "the premises"). :2: :2: :2: 3. The respondent - Syndicate bank (for short "the bank") instituted the proceedings for eviction under the Public Premises Act contending that the petitioners let out and/or inducted respondent nos.2 and 3 unauthorisedly in two rooms on the fourth floor of the said building without consent of the bank and that the possession of the petitioners of the fifth floor and respondent nos.2 and 3 of the two rooms became illegal and unauthorised after termination of their tenancy vide notice dated 13.5.1994. The petitioners were initially in possession of the fourth floor of the said building who subsequently shifted to its fifth floor. The bank seeks possession of the premises for their bonafide use. The petitioners on the other hand resisted the prayer for eviction stating that they have been in the premises since before the bank became owner thereof. It was further contended that in 1955 Calcutta National bank was owner of the said building and at that time Vasant Insurance company was occupying the fourth floor as a tenant of Calcutta National bank. Vasant Insurance company had given two rooms on the fourth floor to M/s.Indo Universal Export (for short "IUE") in 1955 of which Daswani was the proprietor. Daswani inducted respondent no.3 in the premises by executing a deed of assignment in 1981. It is :3: :3: :3: against this backdrop the petitioners and defendant nos.2 and 3 contend that they are lawful tenants of premises and in any case they cannot be treated as unauthorised occupants thereof. 4. Mr.Makhija, learned counsel for the petitioners raised only two contentions. Firstly, he submitted that the Bank has not produced any evidence on record in support of their claim of bonafide requirement of the premises and, secondly, he submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the petitioners inducted defendant nos.2 and 3 as sub-tenants in two rooms on the fourth floor of the said building and that they cannot be described as an unauthorised occupants of the premises. He submitted, defendant no.3 was admittedly put in possession of the said two rooms in December, 1981 and he has been running his business in the same name i.e. IUE. Defendant no.3 and defendant no.2 are son and father respectively. Defendant no.2 admittedly, is a Chartered Accountant and has his firm by name Nathubhai Patel and Co. Defendant No.2 runs his office in one of these two rooms on the fourth floor. He admittedly did not sign the deed of assignment which shows that he was inducted in the premises by defendant no.3 after 1981. There is no dispute that defendant nos.2 and 3 :4: :4: :4: pay rent to the petitioners. It is against this backdrop Mr.Makhija further submitted that in any case, the petitioners cannot be stated to have inducted defendant nos.2 and 3 in the premises and/or their induction in the said two rooms cannot be attributed to the petitioners. In other words he submitted that even if it is assumed that defendant nos.2 and 3 were inducted as sub-tenants that cannot be treated as a ground for the petitioners’ eviction because they were inducted by Daswani behind the back of the petitioners. Insofar as bonafide requirement is concerned Mr.Makhija submitted that the bank has not produced any evidence in support of their contention that they require the premises for custodial services, expansion of their activities and other requirements. 5. I have perused the impugned judgment and other material placed on record by the petitioners. It is not possible to concede that the petitioners have not inducted defendant nos.2 and 3 in the premises. Admittedly, the deed of assignment was executed only between defendant no.3 and the petitioners. There is absolutely no reference to defendant no.2 in the deed of assignment. Defendant no.2 seems to have been inducted by defendant no.3 in the premises after 1981. The petitioners have :5: :5: :5: accepted the rent from defendant nos.2 and 3. It cannot be stated that the petitioners had no knowledge of their induction and it was not with their consent. The petitioners have failed to examine Daswani as their witness. It is clear that defendant nos.2 and 3 are in occupation of the premises unauthorisedly. Even the possession of the petitioners of the fifth floor became unauthorised after termination notice dated 13.5.1994. The definition of the public premises ‘unauthorised occupation’ under section 2(g) of the Act postulates that the tenancy "has been determined for any reason whatsoever". When the statute has advisedly given wide powers to the public authorities under the Act to determine the tenancy, it is not permissible to cut down the width of the powers by reading into it the reasonable and justifiable grounds for initiating action for terminating the tenancy. The statute advisedly empowered the authority to act in the public interest and determine the tenancy or leave and licence before taking action under section 5 of the Act. A public authority is equally entitled to use the public property to the best advantage as a commercial venture. In the present case there doesn’t appear to be dispute that the bank terminated the tenancy vide notice dated 13.5.1994 and since then the possession of the petitioner became :6: :6: :6: unauthorised. At this stage Mr.Makhija pointed out that the ground of sub-letting or inducting defendant nos.2 and 3 in the part of the suit premises was not raised for seeking eviction of the petitioners. At the outset it was not necessary. Moreover, there is no dispute that before the Estate Officer as well as the appellate authority the issue of sub-letting was raised and both have dealt with this question and the submissions advanced by the petitioners. 6. Insofar as the submissions on the point of bonafide requirement are concerned, I have perused the record. The bank has examined their officer - Mr.Ashok Pai in order to establish that they require the suit premises for the bank’s use. His evidence, in my opinion, is sufficient to show that the bank requires premises for personal use. I have perused the evidence of Ashok Pai. He was cross examined by the petitioner and respondent nos.2 and 3 extensively. It is clear from the evidence of this witness that the bank needs the premises to start custodial services and that their requirement is of 10,000 to 12,000 sq. ft. area. I am satisfied that requirement of the bank is genuine and the court below and the Estate Officer have rightly answered the issue in affirmative. I am also satisfied that the petitioners illegally allowed defendant nos.2 and :7: :7: :7: 3 to use two rooms on the fourth floor and their possession is also unauthorised. In the circumstances this revision application has no merit and deserves to be dismissed in limine. Order accordingly. 7. At this stage Mr.Makhija prayed for stay of this order for a period of eight weeks. Though the prayer was opposed by the counsel for the bank I am inclined to grant stay to enable the petitioners to carry this matter further. Order accordingly. It is needless to state that the petitioners shall file usual undertaking in this court within three weeks from today, more specifically stating that the petitioners shall not create third party rights or part with possession of the premises. The revision application is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)