: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.514 OF 2009 Usha Rajhana Khanna ... Applicant V/s. The Trustees of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Haresh Jagtiani with Yashpal Jain, Siddesh Bhole, Vandana Mehta for Applicant Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar i/b S.s. Shah for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 16, 2009 P.C.: 1. The order passed by the City Civil Court at Greater Mumbai in Miscellaneous Appeal No.187 of 2008 has been challenged in the present Civil Revision Application. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the show-cause notice which has been issued to the applicant on 14.3.2005 by the competent authority under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 does not mention the ground of bonafide requirement as one of the reasons for ejectment of the applicant from the suit premises. He has further submitted that the competent authority must not only issue a show-cause notice but must be satisfied that there is a case for ejectment and the satisfaction of the authority must be reflected in the show-cause notice. He has also submitted that as a result of these shortcomings in the showcause notice the applicant has been greatly prejudiced in submitting her reply to the show-cause notice. : 2 : 2. The undisputed facts briefly stated are as under: The Prince of Wales Museum which is now known as Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalay (for short, hereinafter referred to as `Museum’) was established under the Prince of Wales Museum Act, 1909. An offer was made by Sir Cawasji Jehangir to donate a sum of Rs.6 lacs for the construction of an Art Gallery within the compound of the Museum. The trustees of the Museum which is a body corporate permitted the establishment of the Jehangir Art Gallery which is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act within the Museum complex. Accordingly a tripartite agreement was arrived at in July 1951 between the donor, the trustees of the Museum and the Government. Under this agreement, the Board of trustees of the Museum permitted a Committee of Management to be constituted for running the Art Gallery. For this purpose, the Board of Trustees of the Museum permitted the Committee of the Management of the Jehangir Art Gallery to use the buildings, the furniture and equipment of the Museum. The Jehangir Art Gallery (for short, hereinafter referred to as `Art Gallery’) with the consent of the Museum decided to permit the applicant to run a canteen on a leave and licence basis in an area admeasuring approximately 700 sq.ft. An agreement for leave and licence was entered into between the parties on 14.9.1964. This licence was extended from time to time. It appears that in 1981, a suit was filed for evicting the applicant before the Small Causes Court under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (for short, `Bombay Rent Act’). 3. During the pendency of this suit, the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification in the year 2000 u/s 4(2)(1) of the Bombay Rent Act exempting the : 3 : Museum from the purview of the Act. This exemption was continued even under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondents in the present application who were the plaintiffs before the Small Causes Court sought leave to withdraw the suit and file proceedings under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act 1955. Accordingly, on 24.7.2003, the licence issued in favour of the applicant was terminated on the ground that the premises were required by the respondents for improving the facilities and increasing the activities of the Art Gallery for promoting art and artistic effort. In reply to this notice, the applicant denied that the Museum required the premises for its own use or for the purpose of promoting art. 4. An application was filed by the respondents before the competent authority under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act. That application mentioned that the premises were required by the respondents for their own use. 5. A show-cause notice was issued on 14.3.2005 requiring the applicant to show cause why she should not be evicted from the suit premises. The applicant replied to the show-cause notice and after evidence was led before the competent authority, it passed an order declaring that the applicant was in unauthorised occupation of the suit premises w.e.f. 1.9.2003 and was therefore liable for eviction. It was also held that the applicant was liable to pay mesne profits at the current market rate of Rs. 175/- per sq.ft. as damages/compensation from 1.9.2003 till she vacated the premises admeasuring 700 sq.ft. The competent authority further directed recovery of damages/compensation i.e. mesne profits at the current market rate of Rs.175/- per sq.ft. namely Rs.1,22,500/- per month from 1.9.2003 u/s 5(2) of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act. : 4 : 6. On a perusal of the show-cause notice, it does appear that the grounds mentioned therein for eviction do not indicate that the purpose of eviction was that the respondents required the premises for their own use and occupation. However, the notice terminating the licence dated 24.7.2003 does mention the reason for evicting the applicant from the premises is that the respondents required them for their own use and for the promotion of art. The application filed before the competent authority certainly does mention this as the reason for seeking eviction of the respondent. The show-cause notice mentions that the applicant was liable to be evicted as she was in unauthorised possession of the premises which were required for the “government purpose”. This in my opinion, would be sufficient reason to evict the applicant for overstaying the period of licence for the government premises. It also indicates that the competent authority was satisfied that for the reasons stated in the application made to it by the respondents it was necessary to evict the applicant. The competent authority has taken note of the fact that the respondents required the premises for their own use and therefore, issued the notice. In my view, it is not necessary for the competent authority to indicate in detail the reasons for his decision that the applicant was liable to be evicted at the stage of issuance of showcause notice. A showcause notice must merely inform the applicant the reason why she was liable to be evicted. The learned Counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shri Rajendra Manohar Chaubal v/s. The Divisional Railway Manager & Ors., 2005(3) ALL MR 245 to submit that the notice has to specify the ground on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made. This proposition of law cannot be controverted. However, the judgment does not carry the case of the applicant any further since I have already held the grounds : 5 : for eviction have been stated in the show-cause notice. 7. The competent authority on the basis of the evidence led has found that the applicant is not entitled to continue in the premises in view of the fact that the respondents required the premises for their own use and occupation. Significantly, the applicant did not examine herself in the matter but her constituted attorney deposed on her behalf. The competent authority has found that the only reason given by the applicant for not tendering evidence personally, though she was available is that she was unable to concentrate and therefore unable to give coherent evidence. 8. Both the competent authority as well as the appellate authority i.e. the City Civil Court have considered the case made out for evicting the applicant and therefore have held that she was liable to be evicted. The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant before the appellate authority were essentially the same as are being advanced today in this Court. 9. In my opinion, no error of law has been committed by the authorities below requiring interference from this Court The competent authority has scrutinised the evidence on record and has upheld the contention of the respondents. This order has been confirmed by the appellate authority under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act for cogent reasons. I do not therefore think it necessary to interfere in the matter. 10. Apart from this, the show-cause notice issued for payment of : 6 : damages/compensation also cannot be faulted once it is held that the applicant was in unauthorised occupation of the premises. The rate fixed for computing the compensation of Rs.175/- sq.ft. cannot be called unreasonable and exorbitant in view of the location of the premises. 11. In these circumstances, Civil Revision Application is rejected.