: 1 : SD 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 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7642 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.7642 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.7642 OF 2007 Shivdattarai Gulabrai Sons & Anr. ..Petitioners V/s. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Anr. ..Respondents Mr.M.P. Rao i/b. Mr.V.K. Hingorani for the Petitioners. Mr.P.P. Chawan i/b. Mr.Navdeep Vora & Associates for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 27TH APRIL, 2009. DATE : 27TH APRIL, 2009. DATE : 27TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Principal Judge, Thane in Civil Appeal No.84 of 2004. By this Judgment, the order passed by the competent authority has been upheld by the Appellate Court. The petitioner was sought to be evicted by the MIDC on the ground that the petitioner had unauthorizedly sublet a portion of the premises to various persons and had thereby committed a breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 25th November, 1961. A show cause notice was issued under Section 4(2) of the Bombay Government Premises Eviction Act, 1955. Pursuant to this notice being : 2 : issued, a personal hearing was given to the petitioner and thereafter the competent authority passed an order for eviction. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has challenged the order before the Appellate Authority being the Principal District Judge, Thane. 2. It has been found by both the Authorities below that a perusal of the documents which were on record showed that the petitioner-appellant had admitted permitting various persons to continue from time to time in the structures constructed by him. The correspondence established that the petitioner had put such persons in possession of the structure without any permission from the MIDC and thereby had sublet the premises. Both the Courts below have made negatived the submissions on behalf of the petitioner that the structure and the land, being two different entities, the petitioner would still be able to maintain the structure even if the lease was terminated on the basis of the concept of dual ownership. 3. Both the Courts below have on a concurrent finding on facts found that the case of subletting had been proved against the petitioner and therefore : 3 : the action taken by the MIDC against the petitioner was correct. 4. Mr.Rao has very fairly pointed out that a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dinkar S. Vaidya vs. S. Gore & Ors. [reported in AIR 1981 Bom. 190] has considered the concept of dual ownership and this Court has held that although the concept is recognized in India, once the license for the land is terminated, the structure thereon cannot survive and consequently the sublettee must also be evicted as they would be in unauthorised occupation. 5. The Petition is rejected. 6. Mr.Rao submits that the petitioners may be given some time to vacate the premises. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioners are granted four weeks time on submitting the usual undertaking. The undertaking to be furnished within a week from today by all the partners of the petitioner-Firm. .....