[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION L.P.A. NO.353 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5022 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2008 IN L.P.A.NO.353 OF 2008 IN W.P.NO.5022 OF 2008 Shri.Sunil Raghunath Pawar ..Appellant (Ori.Petitioner) Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and Ors. ..Respondents (Ori.Respondents/ Applicants) .... M.J.Jamdar for Appellant M.M.Malvankar i/b A.J.Bhor for Respondents .... CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : MARCH 06, 2009 DATE : MARCH 06, 2009 DATE : MARCH 06, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated [-2-] 12.9.2008 in Writ Petition No.5022 of 2008. By the said order, the learned Single Judge upheld the order dated 21.6.2008 of the learned Civil Judge, whereby the appeal of the Appellant was dismissed and the order of Inquiry Officer of the Respondent-corporation dated 8.2.2007 directing the Appellant to vacate the suit premises under Section 105 of the Municipal Corporation Act, came to be upheld. 3. The suit premises belong to the Respondent-Corporation. One Shri.Gangaram Joshi maternal grand father of the present Appellant was allotted the suit premises on leave and licence basis in the year 1980 as he was employee of the Respondent-corporation. Thereafter, Shri.Gangaram Joshi ceased to be in service. He died in the year 1991. It is the case of the Appellant that at that time, father of the Appellant and others were residing with Gangaram Joshi. 4. However, even after he ceased to be in service of the corporation, Shri.Gangaram Joshi and father of the appellant continued to occupy the suit premises without any authority from the [-3-] corporation. Thereafter, after following due process, the Inquiry Officer directed the appellant to vacate the premises of the corporation. Being aggrieved thereby, the Appellant preferred appeal before the Bombay City Civil Court. The said appeal came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 5022 of 2008. Looking to the fact that the premises were allotted to Gangaram Joshi only on account of his service, after he ceased to be in service, he or his family members cannot hold on to the premises and claim any right to reside in the premises. 5. The further case of the Appellant is that his father Shri.Raghunath Pawar while he was staying with Gangaram Joshi, had applied for allotment of some other pitch. Pitch came to be allotted to him, however, possession of this pitch was not given to Shri.Raghunath Pawar. The learned Single Judge has considered the reply of the corporation wherein it is stated that father of the appellant was not entitled to the pitch and he had no right to get any such pitch, yet the corporation sanctioned pitch bearing No.47-M-8 at Govandi on [-4-] humanitarian ground to Shri.Raghunath Pawar. This pitch was sanctioned in the year 1983. However, Shri.Raghunath Pawar i.e. father of the appellant accepted the said pitch and gave it to a third person in order to get money therefrom. From the record, it appears that the rent is being paid in the name of Shri.Raghunath Pawar for the hut on pitch No.47-M-8. This clearly shows that pitch was duly accepted by Shri.Raghunath Pawar. On the said pitch being visited, it was found that one Mohd. Rafi Farooque was residing in the hut on the pitch. On enquiry with him, Mohd. Rafi Farooque handed over xerox copies of the affidavit entered into between Shri.Raghunath Pawar and one Sarjerao Godse dated 27.11.1990. Mohd. Rafi Farooque claims that he took this property from one Sarjerao Godse. Thus, it is clear that father of the present appellant was put in possession of the pitch allotted to him. However, he handed over the same to third party during his lifetime. It is clear that Shri.Raghunath Pawar i.e. father of the appellant parted with possession of the pitch allotted to him by the Corporation in favour of some other person for some consideration. [-5-] 6. Corporation has placed reliance on the copy of the affidavit dated 22.11.1990 which has been executed by Shri.Raghunath Pawar, the father of the appellant. In the said affidavit, it is stated that he has transferred and assigned all his rights, title and interest in the premises in favour of Shri.S.B.Godse and he has put Shri.Sarjerao in actual possession of the said premises exclusively and absolutely forever. It is further stated in the affidavit that father of the appellant has no objection if the said premises are transferred in the name of Shri.S.B.Godse. 7. The counsel for the appellant submitted that fraud has been committed as thumb impression on the affidavit produced by the corporation is not that of his father. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the document dated 22.5.1992 which bears the thumb impression of his father. We have carefully compared both the thumb impressions and we do not find any merit in the contention that the thumb impression on the affidavit is forged. Hence, we do not find any substance in this contention. [-6-] 8. Looking to the fact that the father of the appellant had been allotted a pitch and he alienated the same during his lifetime. We find no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, L.P.A. is dismissed. Civil Application also does not survive and is dismissed. [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]