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.8284 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.8284 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.8284 OF 2008 Bhaskar Balwant Hukkeri ... Petitioner V/s. The Managing Director Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Prathamesh Bhargude i/b S.B. Deshmukh for Petitioner Mr.S.R. Nargolkar for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 3, 2008 DECEMBER 3, 2008 DECEMBER 3, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This petition has been filed against the order dated 28.8.2008 passed by the District Judge which is the appellate authority under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act 1955. The case of the petitioner is that a voluntary retirement scheme was floated by Respondent No.1. However, according to him, although initially he accepted it, immediately thereafter he had informed the respondent that he did not desire to accept the scheme. The petitioner claims that the respondent has forcibly severed the relationship of master and servant and has now sought to evict him from the quarters allotted to him while he was in service. : 2 : 2. The petitioner contends that he had challenged his termination from service as a consequence of the voluntary retirement scheme. The Labour Court dismissed his complaint filed under the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court had also dismissed the revision application filed by him. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court which has been admitted and is pending. No interim relief has been granted in that petition. 3. The appellate authority has considered all these facts and has found that since there is a severance of the master and servant relationship. The petitioner is not entitled to continue in the service quarters. The appellate Court has therefore passed the impugned order. A possible view has been taken by the appellate authority which need not be interfered with under writ jurisdiction. The petition is rejected. 4. Mr.Deshmukh prays for a stay of this order. Stay refused. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would furnish an undertaking in the usual terms that he and the members of his family would vacate service quarters within a reasonable time as fixed by this Court and on such condition being : 3 : implemented the respondent should not evict them till then. The undertaking to be filed within a week from today. The undertaking to state that the petitioner and the members of his family will vacate the service quarters by 15.1.2009. No further extensions will granted. 6. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.