1 cra82-96-11,j IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.82 OF 2011 Ashok Mahadev Morye .. Applicant V/s. Central Bank of India & Anr. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.83 OF 2011 Dadu Hiroo Malusare .. Applicant V/s. Central Bank of India & Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.84 OF 2011 Rajesh Paradkar .. Applicant V/s. Central Bank of India & Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.85 OF 2011 S. D. Ahire .. Applicant V/s. Central Bank of India & Anr. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.86 OF 2011 B. S. Yerulkar .. Applicant V/s. Central Bank of India & Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.87 OF 2011 2 cra82-96-11,j Hemant Narayan Kore .. Applicant V/s. Central Bank of India & Anr. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.88 OF 2011 Vijay Amin .. Applicant V/s. Central Bank of India & Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.89 OF 2011 A. B. More .. Applicant V/s. Central Bank of India & Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.90 OF 2011 Lallubhai S. Solanki .. Applicant V/s. Central Bank of India & Anr. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.91 OF 2011 R. T. Mahadik .. Applicant V/s. Central Bank of India & Anr. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.92 OF 2011 Pankaj R. Mistry .. Applicant V/s. Central Bank of India & Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.93 OF 2011 3 cra82-96-11,j Y. B. Inamdar .. Applicant V/s. Central Bank of India & Anr. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.94 OF 2011 Kedar Singh .. Applicant V/s. Central Bank of India & Anr. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2011 Y. V. Kambli .. Applicant V/s. Central Bank of India & Anr. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.96 OF 2011 Mrs. Pratibha A. Kamble .. Applicant V/s. Central Bank of India & Anr. .. Respondents ..... Mr. M. M. Vashi with Ms. Prachi K. i/b. M/s. M. P. Vashi & Associates for the applicant. Mr. K. K. Jadhav with Mr. J. K. Jadhav for respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : MARCH 3, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the 4 cra82-96-11,j learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. The challenge in these Revision Applications is to the orders of eviction passed by the Estate Officer against the Revision Applicants which have been confirmed in Appeal by the learned Judge of City Civil Court, Bombay. 2. The revision applicants are employees of the first respondent Central Bank of India. The first respondent allotted residential quarters to the applicants. Possession of the premises was sought by the first respondent by approaching the Estate Officer. Orders of eviction have been passed by the Estate Officer on the ground that the allotment made by the first respondent was withdrawn. It was held that the allotment made to the Revision Applicants was on temporary basis. The orders of eviction have been confirmed in Appeal. The Appellate Authority held that the first respondent was entitled to withdraw the allotment which was made on purely temporary basis. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision applicants submitted that the Estate Officer did not issue any notice under Sub Section 1 of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act). He, therefore, submitted that the entire eviction proceedings are illegal. 5 cra82-96-11,j He submitted that the proceedings were allegedly initiated on the basis of a notice issued by the first respondent and there was no notice by the Estate Officer. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondents pointed out that writ petitions were filed by some of the similarly placed employees of the first respondent in this Court for challenging the similar orders of eviction. He pointed out that by the Judgment and order dated 19th December, 2008, this Court rejected the petitions and Special Leave Petition have been filed by the Petitioners in the said petitions in which an interim order has been passed by the Apex Court on 29th November, 2010. He submitted that the present applicants except the applicants in Civil Revision Application No.83 of 2011, 84 of 2011 and 94 of 2011 will be governed by the interim arrangement made under the interim order of the Apex Court. He stated that the applicants in all the Revision Applications except the aforesaid three revision applicants will be shifted by the first respondent Bank to some other premises. He submitted that the applicants in the aforesaid three Revision Applications are not covered by the interim order of the Apex Court and, therefore, they are not entitled to continuation of the existing quarters. He pointed out that notices under Section 4(1) of the 6 cra82-96-11,j said Act were served to the revision applicants by the Estate Officer. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. In the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority in the present Civil Revision Applications, a clear finding has been recorded that the show cause notices were issued under Sections 4 and 7 of the said Act, 1971 to the applicants by the Estate Officer. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has placed on record a compilation of photo copies of said notices. The finding of the Appellate Authority in these cases is that perusal of the Rules of the first respondent shows that the allotment of quarters was temporary in nature. The Appellate Authority in paragraph No.10 of the Judgment observed that revision applicants did not dispute that the allotment in their favour was on purely temporary basis and it was liable to be withdrawn. Hence, no interference can be made with the impugned order as Revision Applicants have not established any right to continue in possession of quarters. 6. There is no difference between the case of the petitioners before this Court in the Writ Petition Nos.4417 and 5589 of 2008 and the applicants in these Revisions. It will be necessary to make a reference to the interim order dated 29th November, 2010, passed by the Apex Court 7 cra82-96-11,j in a Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioners in the Writ Petition Nos.4417 and 5589 of 2008. Apex Court passed following order : “ The following interim arrangement is broadly accepted by both the sides. (i) 49 employees (sub staff) are occupying units spread over several buildings. Though most of the units are vacant, as some of the units are occupied, the Bank is not in a position to demolish the buildings and take of development work which it proposes. In the circumstances, out of the 49 employees, those who are allottees of quarters, will be shifted by the Bank to one or two buildings so that the Bank will be able to demolish the other buildings and take up the development. (ii) It is made clear that if any family members of deceased allottees (who have been given compassionate appointment) are continuing in such units, they will not be entitled to alternative accommodation. Such occupants will have to vacate.” (iii) The Bank will, in the meanwhile, continue its efforts to identify alternative premises for those who are being shifted to the two buildings.” 7. Though, no case is made out for interference in the Revision Applications, in view of the statement made in the affidavit filed in Civil Revision Application No.88 of 2011 by Mr. Lalitkumar Sharma, Assistant General Manager of the first respondent, the cases of all the Revision Applicants except the applicants in Revision Application Nos. 83 of 2011, 84 of 2011 and 94 of 2011 will be governed by the aforesaid 8 cra82-96-11,j order dated 29th November, 2010 of the Apex Court. Hence, I pass the following order : :: O R D E R :: i. Civil Revision Applications are rejected. ii. However, except in case of revision applicants in Civil Revision Application Nos. 84, 85 and 94 of 2011, in case of all other revision applicants, the first respondent will be bound by the order dated 29th November, 2010, passed by the Apex Court in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1878 and 1879 of 2009. iii. It will be open for the revision applicants in Revision Application Nos. 84, 85 and 94 of 2011, to make a representation to the first respondent. If such representation is filed, the same will be considered by the first respondent in accordance with law. iv. To those revision applicants who are entitled to 9 cra82-96-11,j benefit of the order of the Apex Court, the first respondent will extend the benefits under the said order subject to the said applicants giving an undertakings in writing that they will be bound by the final order which will be passed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition. The undertakings shall be filed in this Court within six weeks from today. JUDGE