5.WP.843-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.843 OF 2009 Ambu Trikam Parmar. ..Petitioner. Versus Union of India and 3 others. ..Respondents. ... Mrs.Rita D. Bhatia with Mrs.A. Saheed, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr.G. Hariharan, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.A.C. Singh, Advocate i/b. Mr.D.R. Shah, Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM : F. I. REBELLO & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 05, 2010. P.C. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. From the Suit filed by amongst others, the respondent No.4 in the City Civil Court in Short Cause Suit No.3424 of 1983, it would be clear that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises, at least as a licensee. 3. The property vests in respondent No.3 under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act. A tenancy has been created in favour of the late mother of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 is 5.WP.843-09 2 now residing in the premises. As pointed earlier, respondent No.4 along with his mother had filed a Suit for eviction of the petitioner before the City Civil Court. That Suit came to be decreed, against which an appeal is pending before this Court being First Appeal No.159 of 1998 and the execution of the decree has been stayed. 4. During pendency of the Appeal, it appears that respondent No. 3 issued a notice to the petitioner on the ground that they were in unauthorized occupation and subsequently evicted the petitioner from the premises which now stands sealed. Even according to respondent No.3 these are the part of servant quarters of premises given to respondent No.4. We again do not propose to enter into the controversy as that issue is an issue before the Civil Court. 5. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the respondent No.3 could have forcibly dispossessed the petitioner from the premises which were in petitioner's occupation, without following due process of law. Admittedly, under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, there is no power in respondent No.3 to evict a person in unauthorized occupation, at least nothing has been brought to our attention. 5.WP.843-09 3 If that being the case, the only way the petitioner could have been evicted by respondent No.3, assuming that they had jurisdiction to do so, was by following due procedure of law - which would be taking recourse to a Court of law or under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction) Act, if the premises would fall under the provisions of that Act. 6. The Supreme Court has declared that no Public Authority can forcibly dispossess a person without following due procedure. Due procedure does not mean that of merely giving a notice. The due procedure contemplates by following due procedure which is by instituting legal proceedings or such steps for recovery which may be available in law. In the instant case, respondent No.3 has not complied with that procedure. 7. Considering the above, in our opinion, the ends of justice would require that the petitioner be restored forthwith in the premises. 8. We, however, make it clear that the rights of respondent No.4, if ultimately the Appeal is dismissed, to order eviction or for that matter of respondent No.3 to take recourse for eviction by following due process of law will not be affected because of the order passed today. 5.WP.843-09 4 9. In the light of the above, the following order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (c); [ii] Respondent No.3 to put the petitioner in possession within seven days from today. [iii] Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 10. The learned Counsel for the respondent seeks stay of the order. In our opinion, the action of respondent No.3 was high-handed and arbitrary and hence question of stay of the order does not arise, more so the stay granted in the appeal pending in this Court. We could have imposed costs on respondent No.3 for their action, which we have not done. Application for stay of the order is rejected. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)