SSK/907 1 WP.1666.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1666 OF 2011 Yeshwant Narayan Tawade ....Petitioner Versus The Competent Authority, Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1669 OF 2011 Sandhya Shantaram Yetkar(Tambe) ....Petitioner Versus The Competent Authority, Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1671 OF 2011 Suprabha Dinkar Ghadigaonkar ....Petitioner Versus The Competent Authority, Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1674 OF 2011 Suman Brijesh Kajeniya ....Petitioner Versus The Competent Authority, Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Ashish Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for respondent no.2 in all the petitions. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 29th MARCH, 2011. P.C.: Heard Gaikwad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bhosale, learned AGP for respondent no.2. SSK/907 2 WP.1666.11 2. Since the issue involved in all the petitions is one and the same, the petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The petitions pertain to eviction proceedings under Section 4(2) Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955. The Competent Authority of the Greater Mumbai after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners passed an Order on 5th January, 2011 thereby directing the petitioners to vacate the premises in question. The petitioners, however, did not vacate the premises in question within a period of seven days, and therefore, the possession of the said premises was taken by the Office of the Competent Authority on 5th February, 2011. The bags and baggages of the petitioners were removed from the suit premises and handed over to the petitioners. Panchanama to that effect was drawn. 4. On 5th February, 2011 itself, the suit premises in question were partly demolished. The petitioners, thereafter, approached the City Civil Court by filing appeals. Application for interim stay was also preferred. Learned Judge, City Civil Court, by his order dated 18th February, 2011 was pleased to admit the appeals. So far as interim relief was concerned, the same was rejected, as the Competent Authority’s order has already been executed and the petitioners themselves by virtue of prayer clause (c) had asked for restoration of possession. SSK/907 3 WP.1666.11 5. The petitioners preferred the above individual writ petitions against the rejection of the interim order. The writ petitions were mentioned for urgent production on 23rd February, 2011. Learned Single Judge on that day after hearing the petitioners directed the parties to the petitions to maintain status-quo and the matters were posted for hearing on 28th February, 2011. Respondent No.2 has now filed an affidavit. Para 11 of the affidavit states as follows: “11. With reference to Para 13 of the Petition, I say that the suit premises have been demolished partly on 5/2/2011 and fully on 23/2/2011 at 12.00 noon (Exhibit N & O) by the PWD by the PWD as per the plan approved by the Heritage Conservation Committee after the execution of the eviction order of the Competent Authority dated 5/1/2011 and after taking possession since the conservation plan of the Old Custom House has to be implemented in a time bound manner, which has already been delayed due to non vacation of the suit premises by the petitioner despite giving notices from time to time. Hence, the PWD had already demolished part of the premises when the petitioner filed the suit in the Hon’ble City Civil Court. The Hon’ble City Civil after considering all the facts has refused to grant the interim relief. SSK/907 4 WP.1666.11 The PWD has demolished the structures after following the due procedure of law by the time the present petition has been filed, since there was no interim relief either from the Hon’ble City Civil Court or the Hon’ble High Court till 23/2/11 at 4.30 pm. The PWD is not required to give notice to the petitioner after his eviction who is unauthorized occupant of the said premises as held by the Competent Authority to demolish the said premises.” The above assertion of respondent no.2 is not disputed by the petitioners by filing any rejoinder. The claim of the petitioners on merits will be considered by the City Court in the appeals which are pending before it. The scope of the writ petitions is restricted to the interim order claimed by the petitioners in the aforesaid appeals. Since it has become clear that not only possession of the premises in question is taken from the petitioners but the premises also are demolished, I do not find any reason to keep the petitions pending in this Court. No interference is called for in the orders impugned in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. SSK/907 5 WP.1666.11 6. In the interest of justice, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court shall endeavour to dispose of the petitioners’ appeals as expeditiously as possible. 7. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the petitioners’ claim and I have disposed of these petitions only on limited ground that the possession of the suit premises is already taken and the suit premises are also demolished before passing of the Order dated 23rd February, 2011. (RANJIT MORE, J.)