1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1497 OF 2009 Shobha Shivanand Kini .. Petitioner. Vs. Canara Bank & Ors.. .. Respondents. Mr. A. T. Kukreja i/by Devang H. Shah for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Bhandari for respondent no. 1. Mr. Harihar Bhave a/w Manisha Pant i/by Bhave & Co. for respondent no. 2. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATE : 8TH APRIL, 2010. P.C. : This petition admittedly relates to public premises which was allotted to the husband of the petitioner by Canara Bank while he was in service with Canara Bank. The flat in question is flat no. 9 admeasuring 590 sq.ft. on the second floor of the builing known as 2 "Krishna Sadan", situated at Sitla Devi Temple Road, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016. The due process of law under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was followed and completed as against the husband of the present petitioner. The petitioner is claiming independent right to possess the premises and, therefore, had chosen to institute RAD Suit No. 1742 of 2002 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. It appears that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in the Small Causes Court at Bombay dismissed the plea of the present petitioner at interim stages. A writ petition was preferred against the two concurrent judgments at the interim stages which was also dismissed wide order passed in writ petition no. 1609 of 2007 decided on 16.7.2007. All the issues raised in the present petition were considered and adjudicated against the petitioner. 2. The learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition no. 1609 of 2007 which was filed by the present petitioner, observed with reference to the plea of the petitioner as under :- "4. The learned counsel further pointed out that the respondent-Bank is not entitled as a lessor to take possession except in accordance with the procedure established by law. This principle would have no application to the present case in view of the fact that the Bank has indeed resorted to the procedure of 3 recovering the possession of the premises under the said Act. The petitioner does not establish any prima facie right recognised by law to retain occupation of the premises which were given to her husband on account of his being an employee of the respondent- Bank. The petitioner has not established any right with the Bank. If there was any right, it was on account of the fact of her husband's employment which itself has been terminated. " Under these circumstances the occupant of public premises against whom due process of law is already followed; any person claiming through the original allottee who had vacated the premises cannot be heard to say that the said person has independent legal right to continue in occupation of the public premises despite the fact that the original allottee has already left the public premises and handed over the same to the authority concerned. At the time of hearing of this petition we have asked as to whether the petitioner has cordial relations with her husband to which answer from learned counsel for the petitioner was in the affirmative. Therefore, it appears that the husband may be interested to prolong the litigation, after having lost through his wife only to delay the fruits of the final order passed in the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. In our view, the petitioner cannot have any 4 independent right other than her husband's who had vacated the public premises. The filing of this petition and continuing with it is nothing but abuse of process of law for which the petitioner must pay exemplary cost quantified at Rs. 25,000/- so that in such cases on the pretext of semblance of right no any unauthorised occupant of public premises shall delay the logical outcome of final order passed in the proceedings. 3. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- payable by the petitioner to respondent Bank. ( J. N. Patel, J) (A.P. BHANGALE, J)