1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2341/2008 Dushkal Nivaran Samiti through its President ...Versus... The Divisional Forest Officer, Deputy Conservator of Forest, Nagpur -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri M.L. Somalwar, Adv. for petitioner] [Shri S.R. Deshpande, Adv. for respondent] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 20.06.2008 Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned orders argued that Section 4 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act 1955 does not permit the authority under the Act to order recovery of water charges. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner has been paying the licence fee regularly to the respondent and there is no cause or reason for evicting the petitioner. 2 Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent opposing the writ petition argued that the premises in question were given for utilization only for a period of one year and that period expired long back but the petitioner went on filing suits in the civil Court and somehow continued to occupy the premises in question without paying the licence fee and water charges. According to him by now levy of water charges recovered from the petitioner has gone up to rupees three lac. The petitioner is also not paying revised rent and the forest department now wants to put the premises in question for auction so that there is increase in the Government revenue. The petitioner cannot compel the respondent to accept the petitioner only as licensee particularly when the period of licence was over long back. Having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties and having seen the impugned orders, at the outset, I must express that there is concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below in relation to illegal occupation by the petitioner on the Government premises. I do not think it proper to disturb the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. Now in so far as the recovery of water charges is concerned, the same 3 would definitely fall within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act. After all, a licensee cannot be heard to say that he would only pay the licence fee but would not pay the water charges which he would consume in huge quantity. Since the said consumption of water is integral to the avocation undertaken by the petitioner in the instant case, namely, running a canteen. The order of eviction so also the order of payment of water charges etc. therefore need no interference. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is, however, granted time of one month to vacate the premises. JUDGE ssw