1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MCA (Review) No.562/2009 in LPA No. 308/2008 in Writ Petition No. 2589/2000 Bhagwandas s/o Shankarlal Rathi Vs. The General Manager, Model Mills, Nagpur and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & PRASANNA B.VARALE, JJ. DATE : 11th December 2009. Heard Mr. Kalbande, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Dewani, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 is a formal party. Since respondent no.2 is a formal party, no notice is necessary and the same is dispensed with. By this review application, the applicant seeks review of the order dated 15.10.2008 dismissing LPA No.308/2008 preferred by the applicant against the order dated 26.6.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2589/2008. The applicant, who was serving with respondent no.1 was compulsorily retired with effect from 31.5.2005. During the tenure of his employment, he was allotted premises by respondent no.1. After the retirement the proceedings for the eviction of the applicant under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 were initiated by the Estate Officer at Mumbai and the Estate Officer passed the order of eviction against the applicant which was maintained by the District Judge in Appeal preferred by the applicant. The applicant challenged both the 2 orders by filing writ petition. Learned Single Judge held that the premises allotted to the petitioner were public premises in terms of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 and as such the applicant had no right to occupy the said premises after his retirement. Consequently, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. As stated above, LPA was also dismissed. Mr. Kalbande, learned counsel for the applicant placing reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. Rampratap Mills Vs. Radheshyam : 2007 (4) Mh.L.J. 235 submitted that the entire proceedings initiated by the Estate Officer at Mumbai are without jurisdiction since the public premises were situated in Nagpur. He, therefore, submitted that the review application be granted and the LPA be admitted. Per contra, Mr. Dewani supported the impugned order. There is no dispute that the services of the applicant were compulsorily retired. There is also no dispute that the premises were allotted to the applicant during the tenure of his employment with respondent no.1. Once the applicant ceased to be in the employment of respondent no.1, the applicant obviously had no right to occupy the premises allotted to him during the period of employment. Although the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. Rampratap Mills (supra) has held that the proceedings must be initiated by the Estate Officer within those local limits only where the public premises are situated, we do not deem it 3 appropriate to exercise review jurisdiction since no fault is seen either in the decision of the learned Single Judge or the decision of the Division Bench while dismissing the writ petition as the applicant has no semblance of right to continue in the premises after he ceased to be in the employment. Insofar as the grievance of Mr. Kalbande that respondent no. 1 has not paid his dues even after he was compulsorily retired is concerned, we find that this cannot be a ground for allowing the review application. It is also not in dispute that the applicant has already initiated proceedings before the Labour Court challenging his compulsory retirement. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no ground to entertain the review application. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.