1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.387 of 2007 REVISION APPLICATION NO.387 of 2007 REVISION APPLICATION NO.387 of 2007 Smt.Noorzahera Smt.Noorzahera Smt.Noorzahera Salim Sultan .. Applicant Salim Sultan .. Applicant Salim Sultan .. Applicant versus versus versus 1. 1. 1. New India Assurance Co Ltd ..Respondents New India Assurance Co Ltd ..Respondents New India Assurance Co Ltd ..Respondents & anr anr anr Mr.P.D.Patel Mr.P.D.Patel Mr.P.D.Patel for Applicant for Applicant for Applicant Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar for Respondents for Respondents for Respondents CORAM CORAM CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J : J.H.Bhatia, J : J.H.Bhatia, J DATED DATED DATED : : : 20th February, 2008 20th February, 2008 20th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. 1. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. 2. 2. The applicant before this Court is in The applicant before this Court is in The applicant before this Court is in occupation occupation occupation of Room no.10 in servant’s quarter, of Room no.10 in servant’s quarter, of Room no.10 in servant’s quarter, Mayfair Mayfair Mayfair Garden at Malabar Hill, Mumbai. The Garden at Malabar Hill, Mumbai. The Garden at Malabar Hill, Mumbai. The property property property originally belonged to M/s Shapoorji originally belonged to M/s Shapoorji originally belonged to M/s Shapoorji Pallonji. Pallonji. Pallonji. Sometimes in 1962 the property was Sometimes in 1962 the property was Sometimes in 1962 the property was purchased purchased purchased by New India Assurance Company which is by New India Assurance Company which is by New India Assurance Company which is a Government Company and to which Public Premises Government Company and to which Public Premises Government Company and to which Public Premises (Eviction (Eviction (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 has of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 has of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 has been been been made applicable. made applicable. made applicable. 3. 3. 3. On an application made by the respondent no.1 On an application made by the respondent no.1 On an application made by the respondent no.1 New New New India Assurance Company, the Estate Officer India Assurance Company, the Estate Officer India Assurance Company, the Estate Officer 2 issued issued issued show cause notice to the applicant as to show cause notice to the applicant as to show cause notice to the applicant as to why why why she should not be required to vacate the she should not be required to vacate the she should not be required to vacate the premises premises premises and to pay charges for the unauthorised and to pay charges for the unauthorised and to pay charges for the unauthorised occupation. occupation. occupation. She replied to the notice. According She replied to the notice. According She replied to the notice. According to to to her, her husband was working with Shapoorji her, her husband was working with Shapoorji her, her husband was working with Shapoorji Pallanji Pallanji Pallanji and he was provided with the disputed and he was provided with the disputed and he was provided with the disputed premises premises premises for occupation since 1958. He was for occupation since 1958. He was for occupation since 1958. He was allowed allowed allowed to occupy the premiess without any payment to occupy the premiess without any payment to occupy the premiess without any payment of of of rent by the previous owner permanently and for rent by the previous owner permanently and for rent by the previous owner permanently and for ever. ever. ever. Her husband expired on 17th August, 2000 Her husband expired on 17th August, 2000 Her husband expired on 17th August, 2000 and and and after his death, she is in occupation of the after his death, she is in occupation of the after his death, she is in occupation of the premises premises premises and she is not in unauthorised and she is not in unauthorised and she is not in unauthorised occupation. occupation. occupation. The respondent no. 1 could not get The respondent no. 1 could not get The respondent no. 1 could not get her her her evicted through the Estate Officer. She evicted through the Estate Officer. She evicted through the Estate Officer. She challenged challenged challenged the power of the Estate Officer to the power of the Estate Officer to the power of the Estate Officer to issue issue issue notice and to pass his order. notice and to pass his order. notice and to pass his order. 4. 4. 4. The applicant examined herself and three The applicant examined herself and three The applicant examined herself and three others others others but, she did not produce any document in but, she did not produce any document in but, she did not produce any document in support support support of the claim. After hearing the evidence, of the claim. After hearing the evidence, of the claim. After hearing the evidence, the the the Estate Officer passed an order dated 11th Estate Officer passed an order dated 11th Estate Officer passed an order dated 11th March, March, March, 2006 holding that the applicant is an 2006 holding that the applicant is an 2006 holding that the applicant is an unauthorised unauthorised unauthorised occupant of the premises which are occupant of the premises which are occupant of the premises which are part part part of the servant’s quarters and which are of the servant’s quarters and which are of the servant’s quarters and which are required required required for the occupation of the servants of the for the occupation of the servants of the for the occupation of the servants of the occupants occupants occupants of the building. After referring to of the building. After referring to of the building. After referring to several several several authorities, the learned Estate Officer authorities, the learned Estate Officer authorities, the learned Estate Officer passed passed passed an order directing her to vacate the an order directing her to vacate the an order directing her to vacate the 3 premises. premises. premises. He also found that the respondent no.1 He also found that the respondent no.1 He also found that the respondent no.1 was was was entitled to claim damages at the rate of entitled to claim damages at the rate of entitled to claim damages at the rate of Rs.6,987.50 Rs.6,987.50 Rs.6,987.50 p.m. w.e.f. 1st September, 2003 with p.m. w.e.f. 1st September, 2003 with p.m. w.e.f. 1st September, 2003 with interest interest interest at the rate of 6%. Accordingly, he at the rate of 6%. Accordingly, he at the rate of 6%. Accordingly, he passed passed passed an order for eviction and for recovery of an order for eviction and for recovery of an order for eviction and for recovery of the the the amount of rent. That order was challenged in amount of rent. That order was challenged in amount of rent. That order was challenged in Misc.Appeal Misc.Appeal Misc.Appeal (St) No.128 of 2006 in September, (St) No.128 of 2006 in September, (St) No.128 of 2006 in September, 2006. 2006. 2006. After hearing the arguments, the learned After hearing the arguments, the learned After hearing the arguments, the learned Principal Principal Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay dismissed dismissed dismissed the appeal observing that there is no the appeal observing that there is no the appeal observing that there is no document document document to show that the applicant is in to show that the applicant is in to show that the applicant is in authorised authorised authorised occupation. Against the dismissal of occupation. Against the dismissal of occupation. Against the dismissal of the the the appeal, the applicant has preferred the appeal, the applicant has preferred the appeal, the applicant has preferred the present present present Civil Revision Application. Civil Revision Application. Civil Revision Application. 5. 5. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties After hearing learned counsel for the parties After hearing learned counsel for the parties and and and perusal of the notice issued by the Estate perusal of the notice issued by the Estate perusal of the notice issued by the Estate Officer Officer Officer and final order passed by him and the and final order passed by him and the and final order passed by him and the order order order passed in appeal, I find that there is no passed in appeal, I find that there is no passed in appeal, I find that there is no dispute dispute dispute about the ownership of respondent no.1 about the ownership of respondent no.1 about the ownership of respondent no.1 over over over the disputed premises. The disputed premises the disputed premises. The disputed premises the disputed premises. The disputed premises are are are part of the servant’s quarters in the said part of the servant’s quarters in the said part of the servant’s quarters in the said building. building. building. As per admission of the present As per admission of the present As per admission of the present applicant applicant applicant in her evidence, her husband was working in her evidence, her husband was working in her evidence, her husband was working with with with M/s Shapurji Pallonji and he was allowed to M/s Shapurji Pallonji and he was allowed to M/s Shapurji Pallonji and he was allowed to occupy occupy occupy the suit premises. Though, according to the suit premises. Though, according to the suit premises. Though, according to her, her, her, her husband was allowed to occupy the said her husband was allowed to occupy the said her husband was allowed to occupy the said premises premises premises permanently and without any payment of permanently and without any payment of permanently and without any payment of 4 rent, rent, rent, there is no documentary evidence in support there is no documentary evidence in support there is no documentary evidence in support of of of this contention. There is no document to show this contention. There is no document to show this contention. There is no document to show that that that the property was either gifted to her husband the property was either gifted to her husband the property was either gifted to her husband or or or he was a tenant. In fact, it appears that he he was a tenant. In fact, it appears that he he was a tenant. In fact, it appears that he was was was working with M/s Shapurji Pallonji and working with M/s Shapurji Pallonji and working with M/s Shapurji Pallonji and therefore therefore therefore he was occupying the said premises in he was occupying the said premises in he was occupying the said premises in servants servants servants quarters. After the building was sold by quarters. After the building was sold by quarters. After the building was sold by M/s M/s M/s Shapourji Pallonji to respondent no.1, the Shapourji Pallonji to respondent no.1, the Shapourji Pallonji to respondent no.1, the present present present applicant or her husband had no right applicant or her husband had no right applicant or her husband had no right title title title or interest in the suit property and they or interest in the suit property and they or interest in the suit property and they could could could not retain the possession. not retain the possession. not retain the possession. However, However, However, it appears that husband of the it appears that husband of the it appears that husband of the applicant applicant applicant was also providing some service to the was also providing some service to the was also providing some service to the officers officers officers of respondent no. 1. May be due to this of respondent no. 1. May be due to this of respondent no. 1. May be due to this reason, reason, reason, he was allowed to retain the occupation. he was allowed to retain the occupation. he was allowed to retain the occupation. Her Her Her husband died in the year 2000. Atleast after husband died in the year 2000. Atleast after husband died in the year 2000. Atleast after the the the death of her husband, she is not entitled to death of her husband, she is not entitled to death of her husband, she is not entitled to retain retain retain the suit premises. Admittedly, the the suit premises. Admittedly, the the suit premises. Admittedly, the applicant applicant applicant never paid any rent or licence fees to never paid any rent or licence fees to never paid any rent or licence fees to the the the respondent no.1. respondent no.1. respondent no.1. 6. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant The learned counsel for the applicant The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently vehemently vehemently argued that the applicant is an argued that the applicant is an argued that the applicant is an illiterate illiterate illiterate woman and a widow and therefore, she woman and a widow and therefore, she woman and a widow and therefore, she has has has no documents to support her claim. It appears no documents to support her claim. It appears no documents to support her claim. It appears that that that this was the only argument in support of the this was the only argument in support of the this was the only argument in support of the claim claim claim of the applicant. The applicant cannot of the applicant. The applicant cannot of the applicant. The applicant cannot 5 claim claim claim right to possession of property merely right to possession of property merely right to possession of property merely because, because, because, she is illiterate or a widow. After a she is illiterate or a widow. After a she is illiterate or a widow. After a perusal perusal perusal of the record, I find no illegality, of the record, I find no illegality, of the record, I find no illegality, irregularity irregularity irregularity or error in the impugned orders. or error in the impugned orders. or error in the impugned orders. For For For the aforesaid reasons, Revision Application the aforesaid reasons, Revision Application the aforesaid reasons, Revision Application stands stands stands dismissed. dismissed. dismissed. (J.H.Bhatia, (J.H.Bhatia, (J.H.Bhatia, J) J) J) 6