vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.367 OF 1996 WRIT PETITION NO.367 OF 1996 WRIT PETITION NO.367 OF 1996 Mallinath Nagappa Kulkarni ... Petitioner V/s. The Municipal Corporation of City of Solapur ... Respondent Mr.T.D. Deshmukh i/b A.A. Kumbhakoni for Petitioner Mr.V.B. Naik for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 6, 2009 APRIL 6, 2009 APRIL 6, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This petition arises from the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Solapur in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.113 of 1995 whereby the appeal against the order of eviction dated 31.7.1995 issued by the Corporation u/s 81B(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 was dismissed. 3. The facts in the case are not disputed. The petitioner was leased the premises in question for a period of three years by the Respondent Corporation on 12.8.1991. The building permission was obtained by him and after the expiry of the lease, the petitioner : 2 : applied for extension of the lease. However, on 1.2.1995 the respondent issued the order of eviction. Reply was filed by the petitioner. Thereafter without giving any opportunity to him, the Corporation passed an order of eviction u/s 81B(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short, ‘BPMC Act’). An appeal was preferred by the petitioner under the BPMC Act to the Additional District Judge, Solapur. That appeal has been dismissed and hence, the present petition. 4. A perusal of the order of Additional District Judge in the appeal indicates that the appellate authority was not impressed with the contention of the petitioner that the Corporation ought to have fixed a date of hearing and given the appellant an opportunity to plead his case. The appellate authority has found that there was no need to give any notice to the petitioner of the date of hearing as that was not required under the provisions of section 81B of the BPMC Act. 5. Section 81B of the Act stipulates that before an order of eviction is passed against any person, a notice in writing must be issued to him specifying the grounds of eviction. The notice must require the person to show cause against the proposed order of eviction by a : 3 : specified date. If any application is made before the Commissioner for extension of the period specified in the notice, the Commissioner may grant the same. The written statement is expected to be filed by such a person who is to be evicted and he is entitled to appear before the commissioner by advocate, attorney or other legal practitioner. This obviously means that a personal hearing must be afforded to any person who is to be evicted from the premises of the Corporation. Admittedly this has not be done. The appellate authority in my opinion has completely misinterpreted the provisions of section 81B. 6. The order of the appellate authority is therefore set aside. The Respondent Corporation will afford a personal hearing to the petitioner in respect of the show cause notice already issued to him. The petitioner may appear before the Corporation on 4.5.2009. The reply has already been filed by the petitioner. He may file such documents as required in addition to those which maybe on record. The enquiry shall be completed by 1.7.2009. 7. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.