bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7323 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7323 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7323 OF 2008 T. Augustine George ... Petitioner v/s The Admiral Superintendent ... Respondent Mr.Lancelot Lewis for the petitioner. Mr.Y.S.Bhate with N.R.Prajapati for the respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 21ST NOVEMBER, 2008 21ST NOVEMBER, 2008 21ST NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short, "the Act"), dismissing his appeal. 2. The petitioner was allotted premises in Naval Civilian Housing Colony, Bldg. No.57, Flat No.9, Powai, Mumbai-400 078. Some residents of the building complained to the respondent that the petitioner and the members of his family had several dogs and cats as pets which were causing a nuisance to them. Besides this, it was alleged that they throw water on the other residents 2 as well as pass rude and abusive remarks against them. An enquiry was instituted to investigate the complainants. This was, in fact, a fact finding enquiry. The enquiry officer concluded that the petitioner and the members of his family were creating a nuisance for the neighbours and, therefore, he was directed to vacate the premises. 3. Since the petitioner did not vacate his residence as directed by the respondents, proceedings were initiated against him under the Act. The Estate Officer held an enquiry in which the complainants were examined, they were cross-examined by the petitioner and thereafter the Estate Officer passed an order for eviction. The respondent by an order dated 31.5.2006 directed the petitioner to vacate the quarters allotted to him and instead he was allotted a new tenement being Quarter No.161/26 in the same complex. The petitioner challenged the orders before the appellate authority under the act who has confirmed the order passed by the Estate Officer. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that he was not given notice of an enquiry which was conducted pursuant to the notice dated 23.12.2005. The witnesses who were examined at that enquiry were not examined in 3 his presence and he was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine them. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this violates the principles of natural justice and therefore the order directing his eviction from Bldg.No.57 Flat No.9 is illegal. 5. I have perused the record of the proceedings before the Estate Officer. All the witnesses who were examined before the fact finding officer were examined before the Estate Officer as well. The petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses by the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer has, for cogent reasons, directed the petitioner’s eviction. The appellate authority has confirmed this order. In my view, there is no need to interfere with the findings of both the authorities below. 6. Apart from this, the petitioner has already been allotted new premises in the same complex and, therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. 7. Writ petition rejected.