ssm sm sm 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 WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6672 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6672 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6672 OF 2008 Shri Hanumant Bhumayya Chinta ...Petitioner. Vs. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. ...Respondents. Shri Madhav Jamdar for the Petitioner. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar i/by Khezar Kharawala for Respondent No.1. Shri S.N.Patil, AGP for Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 16th October, 2008. : 16th October, 2008. : 16th October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The present Petition is filed by the alleged tenant who was working with Respondent-Landlord. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, has confirmed the decree of eviction passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Bombay Rent Act. 2. The Petitioner is occupying Room No. 49 in Chawl No.16, Worli, Mumbai. 3. On 03/01/1990 the Petitioner was the Original ( 2 ) Tenant of the Respondent with respect to the Suit Premises. 4. On 20/01/2005, the Petitioner filed Written Statement dated 20/01/2005 inter-alia denying the contentions raised by the Respondents. 5. On behalf of Plaintiffs Shri Suresh D.Chavan was examined as P.W.1 and Defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1. 6. On 19/04/2008, the Trial Court passed decree only on the ground under section 13 (1) (f) of Bombay Rent Act and the ground under Section 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rent Act was not pressed. 7. The Petitioner filed Appeal No.453 of 2008 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. 8. On 31/07/2008, the Appellate Court confirmed decree only on ground under Section 13 (1) (f) as Respondents already had not pressed the ground under section 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rent Act, in Technical Committee. ( 3 ) 9. Both the Courts after considering the material placed on record by the rival parties, rightly observed that the Petitioner is a service tenant of the Suit Premises and, therefore, as is not in employment is liable to vacate the premises. Admittedly, the Petitioner-Plaintiff retired in the month of December, 2003. He is in occupation pursuance to the service-employment. After retirement, the Petitioner is not entitled to retain possession of the suit premises, therefore, he is in unlawful possession and occupation of the Suit Premises. Admittedly, rent was deducted from his salary by the Respondent during the tenure of his service. The tenancy was terminated by due notice, but there was no response to the same and therefore, in this background the concurrent finding need no interference. It is, therefore, accordingly maintained. 10. However, the submission that the Petitioner-tenant can not be evicted, in view of Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991, D.C.R., 58 (7) which deals that the aspect of development or redevelopment of lands of Cotton Textile Mills, the Petitioner was working with Cotton ( 4 ) Textile Mill - Respondent. In view of this, the parties are at liberty to consider the effect of the said Rules, if any, to the present proceedings. They are free to settle the matter also, pursuant to these Rules or even otherwise. So far as the issue of relationship in question, that decided rightly by the Courts below. 11. Taking all this into account, the present Writ Petition is dismissed with above observations. 12. No order as to costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)