1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1471 OF 2002 Dayaram Babunandan Yadav ..Plaintiff. Vs. Union of India and another ..Defendants. and Smt. Maltidevi wd/o Dayaram Yadav and others ..Applicants. .... Mr. Bharat Vaishnawa for the Plaintiff. Mr. Mandar Goswami with Mr. D.A. Dubey i/b H.D. Rathod for Defendants 1 and 2. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 17th January, 2008. P.C. : 1. The suit was instituted by the original Plaintiff in order to challenge a notice issued by the Chief Administrator of the Naval Area in the month of April 2002 calling upon the Plaintiff to make arrangements for handing over vacant and peaceful possession of Stall No. 64(S) on or before 19th April, 2002. The allegation in the notice was that permission was granted to the original Plaintiff to occupy and use the premises of the aforesaid stall and the permission had come to an end by efflux of time on 19th April, 2 2002. It was also alleged that the Plaintiff had made an unauthorized extension. 2. A Notice of Motion was taken out in the suit in which, on 26th April, 2002 a statement was made on behalf of the Defendants that the Plaintiff would not be evicted without following due process of law. The Motion was accordingly disposed of. The original Plaintiff expired on 23rd November, 2007. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support it has been stated that an officer of the Defendant came to the stall on 24th December, 2007 at 3.30 p.m. and told the Applicants to close down the shop and not to carry on any business therein. Counsel appearing for the Defendants has stated on instructions that as a matter of fact such oral directions were issued not to carry on business. Now the order passed by the Court on 26th April, 2002 did not prohibit the Defendants from taking recourse to due process of law for evicting the Plaintiff. The Defendants would be at liberty to do so but it would be inappropriate and unlawful to forcibly remove the Applicants who are now the legal heirs of the deceased Plaintiff. Counsel appearing for the Defendants states that the Defendants intend to take recourse to the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized 3 Occupants) Act, 1971 or such other remedies as are open to them for securing possession of the premises from the Plaintiff. The statement is accordingly accepted. No further directions are consequently sought in the Notice of Motion in view of the aforesaid statement which has been made. Until the Defendants secure an order of eviction in accordance with law, the Defendants shall not take any coercive steps as against the occupants. The Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of.