KBP 5647-09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5647 OF 2009 Narottamdas Maganlal ..Petitioner Vs. The Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.M.P.Vashi h/f. M/s.M.P.Vashi & Associates, for petitioner. Mr.Makhija, i/b.M/s.Motiwalla and co., for respondent no.1. Ms.Divya Gurbuxani a/w. Mr.A.T.Suryawanshi, i/b.M/s.Duttmenon Dunmorrsett, for respondent nos.3 and 5. ......... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 13 th August, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd and 5 th respondents. By order dated 22 nd July, 2009 this court directed that the petition will be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2] By preferring an appeal the petitioner challenged an order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer in exercise of powers under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. By the impugned order, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court has rejected an application made in the appeal for stay of execution and operation of the order of eviction. The rejection is on the ground that the lessee did not contest the proceedings. The second ground is that the original lessee prayed for impleadment of sub- tenants which prayer was not acceded by the Estate Officer and the order KBP 5647-09.sxw 2 declining to implead the sub-tenants has been confirmed on the ground that the head tenant alone was entitled to be heard. 3] When the petition came up before this Court on 22 nd July, 2009, it was suggested to the parties that instead of keeping this petition pending, the appeal can be ordered to be disposed of within a period of 4-6 weeks from that day and in the meanwhile the parties can be directed to maintain the status-quo. However, as the Counsel for the third and fifth respondents prayed for time to take instructions, the writ petition was adjourned. Today, the learned Counsel for third and fifth respondents states that her clients are not agreeable to accept the suggestion made by the court and Hence, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4] The main objection of the learned counsel for the third and fifth respondents who are original lessees is that the said respondents had made the petitioner and all other sub-lessees aware about the eviction proceedings but none of them have taken any steps for defending the eviction proceedings. The learned counsel further pointed out that the prayer made by the said respondents for impleading the alleged sub-tenants to the eviction proceedings has been rejected by order dated 22 nd August, 2008 by this Court. She submitted that as the sub-tenants including the petitioner are not vacating, her clients who are the lessees are being burdened with the liability of payment of rent and other charges. The submission is that the petitioner has no right as the said respondents who are the lessees have accepted the order of eviction. 5] I have considered the submissions. The effect of the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer is that on the basis of said order the petitioner will be evicted from the premises which is claimed to be in his possession. It is true that the petitioner did not apply for impleadment before the Estate Officer, but the fact remains that the petitioner was not a party to the eviction KBP 5647-09.sxw 3 proceedings. The law provides for an appeal against the order of eviction. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been admitted but the stay of the order of eviction has not been granted. On 9 th June, 2009 while passing the impugned order the learned Judge rejected the prayer for stay but protected the petitioner for a period of five weeks. During these five weeks the appeal could have been finally disposed of. Since the petitioner is directly affected by the order of eviction and since the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been admitted, till the appeal is disposed, of the possession of the petitioner will have to be protected. However, it will have to be ensured that the appeal is disposed of immediately. If the petitioner is unable to establish his right to continue in possession, the appellate court is bound to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. As the substantive appeal is pending it is not necessary to go into the question of legality and validity of the order of eviction. Hence, I pass the following order: (a) The impugned order dated 9 th June, 2009 is quashed and set aside. (b) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge of City Civil Court on 31 st August, 2009._______ (c) The appeal shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 1 st October, 2009. (d) Till the disposal of appeal, the petitioner and the first respondent will maintain status-quo in all respects as regards the premises in possession of the petitioner. (e) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (f) If there are other appeals preferred against the same impugned order then all such appeals be taken up for final hearing along with the appeal preferred by the petitioner. KBP 5647-09.sxw 4 The first respondent will supply a list of such appeals to the learned Judge. The learned Judge will forthwith call for the record of the proceedings before the Estate Officer. ( A.S.OKA, J. )