pvr １ wp114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.114 OF 2011 Vilas Vardhamanrao Sanghai. ...Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.Rajshekhar V.Govilkar, for Petitioner. Mr.R.J.Mane, AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 3. Mr.S.A.Ingawle, for Respondent no.2. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 10th October,2011. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by respondent no.3 directing him to vacate the premises. It is an admitted position that the premises to which the petition relates was requisitioned by the pvr ２ wp114 Government under the Defence of India Rules for providing accommodation to the persons who are in active service of the police. The premises were allotted to the petitioner because he was in the service of the Police department. Admittedly, he has retired from the services in the year 2007. Even after his retirement, he continues to occupy the premises. Therefore, an order has been issued under Section 31 of the Bombay Police Act directing him to vacate the premises. The main contention of the petitioner is that because of Section 15B of the Bombay Rent Act, the petitioner became a deemed tenant of the premises in the year 1996. It is his case that the Commissioner had granted him permission to enter into an agreement with the landlord and also for becoming a member of the Co-operative society. According to the petitioner, therefore, as he has become deemed tenant of the premises, the Government and the Police Department cannot evict him. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the pvr ３ wp114 State Government and the Respondent nos.1 & 3, it is clearly stated thus:- 5.I state that the above premise came to be allotted to the present Petition in 1984. No rent was recovered from the Petitioner in respect of service quarter. The Petitioner was using the said premises merely in the nature of service accommodation and not as tenant thereof. The rent of the said quarter was paid by the office of the Commissioner of Police to the landlords. There were no relationship between the petitioner and the landlords. There were no relationship between the petitioner and the original landlord. The Respondents crave leave to produce the rent receipts as and when required by this Hon ble Court. 6. I state that the Petitioner had made an application on 27.7.2007 requesting of transfer of tenancy right in his favour in respect of requisition flat alloted to him as pvr ４ wp114 service quarter. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by the Government and the same was informed to the Petitioner vide its Order dated 20.1.2007. (emphasis supplied) Thus, the State Government has clearly stated that the rent of the premises was throughout paid by the Commissioner of police to the landlord. The petitioner has filed rejoinder but in the rejoinder he has nowhere denied that the rent of the premises was throughout paid by the Commissioner of Police to the landlord. It appears that after his retirement he applied to the Government for transfer of tenancy rights in his favour. That application was rejected by the Government. The fact of making application to the Government and its rejection is not denied. If the petitioner had already become the tenant in the year 1996, there was no question of making application to the State Government for transfer of tenancy right in his favour. We have not been pvr ５ wp114 shown that the petitioner had challenged the rejection order of the State Government at any point of time. Therefore, in our opinion, the petitioner is not justified in contending that he became the deemed tenant of the premises in the year 1996. What is further to be seen is that the permission was granted to him by the Additional Commissioner of Police to become a member of the Co-operative Society and that permission was subject to the condition that The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai should relinquish its rights from the said premises and there should be clear orders to that effect. That order was made in the year 2000. If the petitioner had become a tenant of the premises in the year 1996, there is no question of the petitioner seeking permission of the Additional Commissioner to become a member of the housing society and if the permission was conditional, it was for the petitioner to challenge that condition, if it was his case that he has already pvr ６ wp114 became tenant. It is thus clear that the plea of the petitioner that he is a deemed tenant of the premises is the plea of convenience being raised by the petitioner to enable him to get the premises. The premises are requisitioned by the Government to provide accommodation to the police personnel who are in active service of the Government. They are service quarters. They cannot be permitted to be occupied by those persons who are no more in active service. Though the petitioner has actually retired from the services in the year 2007, he continues to occupy the premises. In our opinion, it will not be prudent exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to protect such petitioner. In our opinion, therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected. It is, accordingly, rejected. At this stage, a request is made that the interim order which is presently operating should pvr ７ wp114 be continued. In our opinion, it will not be proper to continue the interim order because we have found that the petitioner is occupying the premises without authority of law. The request is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.)