1207wp2206.11.odt 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2206 OF 2011. Nandlal S.Tiwari ..vs.. The Oriental Manager, M/s Raibahadhur Bansilal Amirchand Mills & ors. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. P.S.Sahare, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 12th July, 2011. 1. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 10/1/2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Wardha, by which the Appeal filed by the petitioner being No.115 of 2004 came to be dismissed and the eviction order dated 30/7/2004 passed by the Estate Officer came to be confirmed. 2. The petitioner herein was in service of the respondent no.1 which later on came to be transferred to the National Textile Corporation (NTC), which is a Government of India undertaking. The petitioner was occupying the service quarters in the premises of the said Mill. The tenancy of the petitioner came to be terminated by the National Textile Corporation and thereafter the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act,1971 by following the gamut of processes came to be adopted against the petitioner. The petitioner did not participate in the said proceedings and thereby did not prove that he was in 1207wp2206.11.odt 2 authorized occupation. The Estate Officer on consideration of material before him passed an order of eviction dated 30/7/2004. 3. Aggrieved by the said eviction order passed by the Estate Officer, the petitioner filed Regular Civil Appeal which, as indicated above, has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10/1/2011 and thereby eviction of the petitioner has been confirmed. Both the Estate Officer as well as the Appellate Court have taken into consideration the fact that the premises in question occupied by the petitioner were public premises and were therefore amenable to the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act,1971. Both the courts below have recorded a finding that the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated by issuance of the notice dated 14/5/2003 pursuant to which the proceedings came to be initiated against the petitioner under the said Act. The petitioner has not proved as to how his possession was authorized. Both the Estate Officer as well as the Appellate Court have, therefore, ordered the eviction of the petitioner. 3. It appears that after the order passed by the learned District Judge the petitioner has already handed over the premises in question to the Court Receiver, who has been appointed in respect of the property of the said Mill. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute