vss 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 WRIT PETITION NO.903 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.903 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.903 OF 2008 M/s.Gill & co. Private Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. National Textile Corporation Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.N.Jayaranman with Ms.Preeti Shah for Petitioner Mr.Hiralal Thackar for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 8, 2008 DECEMBER 8, 2008 DECEMBER 8, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition has been filed by a private limited company which claims to be in authorised occupation of an area of 4890 sq.ft. and 527 sq.ft on the mezzanine floor of the NTC House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai. It is the contention of the petitioner that it was a tenant of the erstwhile private mill in respect of the premises and continues to be a lawful tenant of the NTC after the enactment of the Sick Textile Mills Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Nationalisation Act’). It is submitted that the orders of the Estate Officer and the appellate authority do not record any finding that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the premises and, therefore, the impugned orders are required to be set aside. A contention is also raised that the order : 2 : of the Estate Officer is contrary to the show-cause notice issued inasmuch as it has been held the petitioner’s right to tenancy has been extinguished in view of the vesting of the property under the Nationalisation Act. This was not a ground for eviction in the showcause notice, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. These submissions in my opinion, are unsustainable. The petitioner’s tenancy was terminated on 1.1.1976 after which the petitioner has been in unauthorised occupation. A show-cause notice was issued on 25.10.1976 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Public Premises Act’). The Estate Officer has found that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the premises and has therefore evicted the petitioner. Similarly, the appellate authority has confirmed the order. 3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. v/s. Vishnu Narayan & Associates Private Ltd. and Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 134 (2002) 4 SCC 134 (2002) 4 SCC 134. It is submitted that the Nationalisation Act is paramateria with the provisions of West Bengal Great Eastern Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1980. According to the learned : 3 : advocate for the petitioner, the interpretation placed by the Supreme Court on the provisions of that Act would apply to the provisions of the Nationalisation Act. This submission also cannot be accepted as in the West Bengal Great Eastern Hotel’s case (supra), tenancy was not terminated and action was sought to be taken under the Public Premises Act. It is in these circumstances that the Supreme Court has interpreted the law. In the facts and circumstances of this case, when tenancy in fact has been terminated in 1976, the impugned orders cannot be faulted. 4. The submission of the learned advocate for the Petitioner that the ground for eviction and the show-cause notice is different from the ground stated in the order passed by the Estate Officer also is without merit. The Estate Officer has considered the ground mentioned in the showcaue notice and has further stated that in any event, the tenancy came to an end on the Nationalisation Act being enacted under which all the properties of the erstwhile mills were nationalised. 5. Petition is therefore dismissed 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks stay of this order for 12 weeks. Stay granted for eight weeks.