IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8826 OF 2009 M/s.Enbee Corporation. ... Petitioner. V/s. Estate Officer, LIC and another. ... Respondents. Y.R.Shah for the petitioner. M/s.Priscilla Samuel i/b. Raymond V. Samuel for the respondents. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. DATED : 22nd January 2010. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused petition. 2. This petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 12th August, 2009 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.138/2009 whereby the order dated 5th June, 2009 passed by the Estate Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 directing the petitioners and others to deliver vacant possession of the disputed premises came to be confirmed. 3. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed premises as a licensee prior to 1st February, 1973 and as such the petitioner was a deemed tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, therefore, the respondent No.2 has no right to evict them. It is further submitted that the deceased was tenant of one Mr.Lalgir since 1940 and the building was then known as Lalgir Chambers. The Crescent Insurance Company, thereafter, became landlord of the premises and, subsequently, on nationalisation, respondent No.2 became landlord somewhere in the year 1975 as such, according to the petitioner, the disputed premises was not public premises when the petitioner came in possession in 1971. 4. Both the aforesaid contentions are dealt with by the lower appellate Court by a reasoned order. I was taken through the impugned order passed by the authorities below. I fully concur with the reasons given in the impugned order. The view taken in the impugned order is a reasonable and possible view. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. No perversity in the impugned order is demonstrated either in the petition or during the course of oral submissions. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the premises in question is not a public premises. The Rent Act is not applicable to the premises in question. 5. In the result, petition is without any substance. The same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. 6. Having dismissed this petition, the Court had indicated whether some time to be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner was to make statement in this behalf. However, no such statement came forward. Under these circumstances, this fact is placed on record to make the record straight. (V.C.DAGA J.)