IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 388 OF 2007 Saba Rizvi & Ors. ...... ...... Applicants V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. ..... ...... Respondents. Mr.P.D.Patel, Adv. For the applicants. Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar, Adv. For the respondents. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 21st NOVEMBER, 2008. PC: Heard Mr.Patel, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.Sanglikar, learned counsel for respondent No.1. The proceedings arise under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the said Act”). The respondents filed proceedings against the present applicants for eviction under the said Act. It was case of the respondents that it is a Government company established as subsidiary of the General Insurance Corporation of India under the General Insurance Business (Nationalized) Act 1971 and more than 50% of its share capital is held by the Central Government and since the suit premises admittedly belonging to it, same are public premises within the meaning of section 2E of the said Act. It was further case of the respondents that the suit premises are meant to be servant quarter and the same was allotted to father of the applicants 1 as servant quarter because he was undertaking plumbing and maintenance work required for the Company. The father of the applicants expired in the year 1999, however the applicants are occupying the schedule premises without authority, though they are not working as servant of the respondents. In above facts proceedings under the said Act was initiated. 2. Per contra case of the applicants was that they are bonafide tenants as their late father was residing in the schedule premises belonging to the respondent since 1971 and after his demise present applicants are occupying the same. It was further case of the applicants that the respondents filed LEC Suit No.163/991/83 against their father, however the same was dismissed for default and therefore it will operate as res-judicata for the present proceedings. It was submitted that the very fact that applicants' father was residing in the suit premises since last more than 40 years entitled them to claim tenancy. 3. The Estate Officer disposed of the proceedings initiated by respondents by an order dated 25.4.07. It was inter alia held that the scheduled premises are public premises and the applicants are in unauthorized occupation of the same. The Estate Officer over ruled the applicants' claim of tenancy to the schedule premises. Consequently eviction order is passed. 4. The applicants being aggrieved preferred Misc.Civil Appeal No.126/07 in City Civil Court, Bombay and the learned Judge after 2 hearing both sides was pleased to dismiss the appeal. 5. There is no dispute that the schedule premises are belonging to the respondents and therefore are public premises within the meaning of the said act. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the schedule premises was allotted by the respondent to father of the applicants as servant quarter because he was undertaking plumbing and maintenance work required for the the respondent-company. It was further held that the applicants are in occupation of the schedule premises unauthorizedly. In my view, the concurrent findings recorded by both the authorities below cannot be faulted with as the same are recored after appreciation of evidence on record. 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are tenants and the proceedings before the Small Causes Court at the instance of respondents operate as res-judicata in my considered view has no merit. In order to show that the applicants are tenants in the scheduled premises absolutely there is no iota of evidence on record. Merely long stay of the applicants in the scheduled premises will not confer on them status of tenants. So far as the submission of res-judicata is concerned that is also without any merit as according to the applicants themselves the suit in the Small Causes Court was dismissed for default and was not prosecuted thereafter by the respondents. In my view if the scheduled premises answer the description of public premises within meaning of the said and if it is found that the applicants are in unauthorized occupation 3 then in that case no fault can be found in eviction order. The revision is without any merit and the same is therefore dismissed. 7. At this stage Mr.Patil, learned advocate for the applicants requests for stay of this order for a period of 12 weeks. Mr.Sanglikar, learned advocate for respondents submits that period of 12 weeks will be too long. Having considered rival submissions I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice stay to the present order deserves to be granted for a period of 10 weeks from today subject to deposit of payment of damages as decided by the lower Court and execution of usual undertaking within a period of four weeks from today. C.C. Expedited. 21.11.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 4