:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2650 OF 2008 Smt. Vimala Rajan Swami ..Petitioner Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ..Respondent Mr. Onkar Warange for petitioner. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : April 24, 2008. Date : April 24, 2008. Date : April 24, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Warange the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. As per the order passed by the Enquiry Officer on 29/5/2007 pursuant to the notice under Section 105-B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1881, the petitioner was called upon to vacate Room No.10, Chawl No.D-7, Ground Floor, 378 Tenements, Khardeo Nagar, Ghatala, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 (for short the Enquiry Premises). The said order was challenged in :2: Misc. Appeal No. 140 of 2007 and the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court was pleased to dismiss the same vide his judgment and order dated 25/1/2008. 3. Both the authorities below concurrently noted that the Enquiry Premises was originally allotted to Smt. Ashalata More who was the Headmistress in one of the Municipal schools and she retired from Municipal service on 1/9/1996. She died on 1/11/2000. The petitioner continued to occupy the Enquiry Premises even after the demise of Mrs. More and, therefore, the notice was issued. 4. It was contended by the petitioner that she was not an unauthorised occupant of the Enquiry Premises and the Administrative Officer of the Corporation had passed an order permitting Mrs.More to allow the petitioner to stay with her on payment of additional rent and the said order created a vested right in her favour. The authorities below have held that the Administrative Officer had no powers to pass such an order and it was only on compassionate ground :3: that Mrs. More was allowed to utilise the services of the petitioner by staying with her. In addition, the Enquiry Premises was a service quarter and the petitioner was not an employee of the Municipal Corporation at any time. There was no relationship of landlord and tenant and, therefore, she is required to vacate and hand over the Enquiry Premises to the Corporation. 5. The concurrent view taken by both the authorities below cannot be termed as perverse of grossly erroneous so as to cause interference in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and, therefore, this petition fails at the threshold. 6. The petition is hereby rejected. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)