1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3041 OF 2009 M/s.Herdilia Chemicals Ltd. (now known as S.I.Group India Ltd.)... Petitioners v/s Air India Ltd. & anr. ... Respondents Mr.F.P.Pooniwala with Miss P.L.Bachani i/by I.R.Joshi & Co. for the petitioners. Ms.Ranjana Parikh for the respondents. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 22ND JUNE, 2009 P.C.: 1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants’ Act, 1971 (in short, “the Public Premises Act”), dated 28.11.2008. By this order, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer has upheld the contention of the respondent 2 No.1, Air India that they require the premises for their own use and occupation and that in view of the threats to the Air India building situated at Nariman Point, Mumbai, it was necessary to evict the petitioners. 2. The petitioners were put in occupation of the premises in the Air India building on 1.12.1970. According to the petitioners, they are tenants of Air India and that it was only for administrative purposes that Air India insisted that a leave and licence agreement should be entered into between the parties. Accordingly that agreement was executed on 15th December, 1971 for the period from 1.12.1970 to 30.11.1975. After that period expired, a fresh leave and licence agreement was executed on 19.1.1976 for a period of five years from 1.12.1975. On the expiration of that agreement, the leave and licence agreement was renewed yet again on 20.6.1982. The period of the licence was upto 30.11.1983. The petitioners continued in the premises. According to them, they thereafter refused to execute a fresh leave and licence agreement which was proposed by Air India. 3. It appears that, by a letter dated 10.2.1995 3 Air India terminated the licence and sought vacant possession of the premises. The reason stated in the letter was that Air India required additional space in view of the increase in its staff strength and for security concerns which had arisen because of the bomb blasts which took place on 12.3.1993 affecting the Air India building. 4. Since the petitioners failed to hand over possession of the 13th floor which was in their occupation, the Estate Officer issued a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act on 19.4.1999 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from the premises. The petitioners replied to the show cause notice contending that the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice because the petitioners were tenants under an oral agreement of tenancy. It was contended that the rights of the parties would be governed by the Transfer of Property Act and the Bombay Rent Act and not the Public Premises Act. Reliance was placed on the guidelines issued by the Central Government with respect to eviction of persons from public premises. 5. After evidence was led, the Estate Officer 4 passed an order on 11.5.2002 directing the eviction of the petitioners from the premises. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the City Civil Court, Mumbai. The appeal has been dismissed on 20.11.2008 and hence this petition. 6. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the provisions of the Public Premises Act would not apply since they are summary proceedings and recourse to those proceedings cannot be taken when the relationship between the Air India and the petitioners was that of landlord and tenant. He submits that there was an oral agreement of tenancy between the parties and, therefore, Air India was bound by that agreement. The learned counsel further submits that the leave and licence agreement which was executed by the parties was only by way of convenience and therefore could not override the oral agreement of tenancy between the parties. On merits, the learned counsel submits that the eviction of the petitioners from the Air India building on the ground of security is illusionary and imaginary as there was no material on record to indicate that the petitioners’ continuance in the building would constitute a 5 threat to Air India. He also placed reliance on the circular issued by the Government of India in respect of eviction of unauthorized occupants of public premises. According to him, the guidelines provided that such proceedings under the Public Premises Act should not be adopted against genuine tenants. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Air India submits that the guidelines are applicable only to genuine tenants or occupants of public premises. She submits that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation since their licence was terminated in the year 1995 and, therefore, according to her, the guidelines would not in any manner be applicable to the facts in the present case. 8. The evidence of the founder director of the petitioners has been recorded and it indicates that as soon as the occupation certificate was received, the petitioners were the first occupants in the Air India in December, 1970. He has also stated that, it was agreed that the petitioners would be recognized as tenants of Air India. Based on this evidence, it is submitted on behalf of the 6 petitioners that they are tenants of Air India. 9. It is difficult to accept this contention. The witness has admitted that there is no record of any understanding between the parties that the premises were let to the petitioners on a tenancy basis. In these circumstances, the only documents showing any relationship between the petitioners and the respondent Air India in respect of the premises occupied by the petitioners in the Air India building are the leave and licence agreements executed between the parties from time to time. Had there been any understanding in fact as claimed by the petitioners that they would be recognized as tenants, there certainly would have been record to that effect. Moreover, they would not then have entered into leave and licence agreements with Air India even if one accepts the past relationship between the founding fathers of the petitioners and Air India. 10. There is enough material on record to indicate that Air India requires the premises in view of its increasing staff strength. Apart from this, the respondents have brought on record the fact that the Air India building was targeted during March, 1993 7 bomb blasts and, therefore, Air India has decided to evict the petitioners and other occupants of the building in view of the security requirements of Air India. 11. Proceedings to evict other occupants of the Air India building have been initiated on similar grounds for bonafide use and occupation of the premises and in view of the security threat. The occupants had challenged the decision of the Appellate Authority, upholding the orders of the Estate Officer in Writ Petition No.4911 of 2000 and Writ Petition No.7747 of 2008. Both these petitions have been dismissed by accepting the aforesaid grounds for eviction. 12. The contention that the guidelines of the Government indicate that only unauthorized occupants should be evicted and that eviction proceedings must be carried out in accordance with the guidelines, also does not advance the case of the petitioners. It is true that the guidelines are in operation. However, they have been framed in order to prevent arbitrary use of powers to evict genuine non affluent tenants from public premises. The guidelines do not apply to large business houses or 8 commercial entrepreners. In the present case, the petitioners cannot be called genuine non affluent tenants. They are in unauthorized occupation of the premises of which they were licencees till their licence was terminated. 13. In my opinion, neither the order of the Estate Officer not that of the Appellate Authority can be faulted. There are no infirmities in the orders passed by either the Estate Officer or the appellate authority requiring interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. Writ petition rejected. ..... 9