- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO.1321 OF 1992 ... State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner v/s. 1. The Competent Authority 2. Shri V.B.M.Kadar 3. High Court of Judicature at Bombay ...Respondents ... Mr.G.W.Mattos, AGP for the Petitioner. Mr.M.P.S.Rao with Ms.Merlyn Monterio for Respondent No.2. Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr.Counsel with Mr.G.S.Godbole for Respondent No.3. - 2 - ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.S.MOHITE,JJ. DATED: 23RD APRIL, 2009 P.C.: 1. This is the petition filed by the State Government challenging the order passed by the competent authority under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act 1955 dated 5-2-1990. The facts that are material and relevant are that a piece of land inside the High Court premises was allotted to the predecessor-in-title of the Respondent No.2 in 1948. He was permitted to put up a structure on the land, where he was running a canteen. From time to time the Government was granting lease of the land to the Respondent No.2. Last time the lease was granted on 16-10-1987 and that period of lease expired on 15-10-1990. Admittedly, thereafter the lease has not been granted. The High Court needed the premises for expansion. Therefore, the Respondent No.2 was asked to vacate the premises. He did not vacate the premises. Therefore, proceedings under the Act were - 3 - initiated. It was the case of the State Government that the land admittedly belongs to the Government, admittedly, there is no lease in favour of the Respondent No.2 after 15-10-1990. Therefore, his occupation of the land is unauthorised and therefore he is liable to be evicted. 2. The defence of the Respondent No.2 was that though it is true that the land belongs to the Government and there is no lease of the land in favour of the Respondent No.2, because he is the owner of the structure, he cannot be removed from his structure. This defence of the Respondent No.2 has been upheld and order has been made, as a result of which the Respondent No.2 continues to occupy the land and the structure. During the pendency of the petition, as the High Court urgently needed the premises for construction of a building, an interim order was made by this court dated 1st October, 2004 and by that order the Respondent No.2 was shifted to other nearby premises in the High Court compound as an interim arrangement. Admittedly, the Respondent No.2 continues to run his canteen from the other premises. - 4 - 3. The question in this petition, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the competent authority is valid or invalid. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for both sides. Perusal of the order of the competent authority shows that according to the competent authority in view of the definition of the term "government premises" found in Section 2(b) as the structure belongs to the Respondent No.2 he cannot be evicted. The term "government premises" is defined under Section 2(b), which reads as under:- 2(b) "Government premises" means any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by the State Government, and includes the premises requisitioned or continued under requisition under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 and allotted by the State Government for any non-residential purpose to any department or office of the State Government or Central Government or any public sector undertaking or corporation owned or controlled fully or partly by the State Government or any co.operative society registered under the - 5 - Maharashtra Co.operative Societies Act, 1960 or any foreign consulate, by whatever name called, and on the date of coming into force of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control, Bombay Land Requisition and Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1996, (are in their occupation or possession) and any premises taken on behalf of the State Government on the basis of tenancy or other like relationship by, or in the name of, any officer subordinate to the State Government authorised in this behalf (and also includes any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or held by, or on behalf of- (i) any company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty-one per cent, of the paid-up share capital is held by the State Government; (ii) any Corporation (not being any such company or a local authority) established by or under any Central or State Act and owned or controlled fully or partly by the State - 6 - Government; The term "premises" is derined by Section 2(d) as follows: (d) "premises" means any land or building or part of a building and includes- (i) the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of a building; and (ii) any fitting affixed to such buildingor part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof: 4. A combine reading of the provisions of sub-section (b) and sub-section (d) of Section 2 shows that the land is included in the definition of the term " premises". Therefore, if the land is of the Government or belongs to the Government, is occupied by any person who has ceased to have authority to occupy it, then the proceeding under the Act are maintainable. The term "the land" is also defined by sub-section 2(c) of the Act. It reads as - 7 - under:- 2(c) "land" includes benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth; 5. Perusal of the above definition shows that things permanently attached to the earth are also included in the definition of the term "land". In our opinion, therefore, when the land belongs to the Government, merely because the Government has permitted somebody to erect the structure for effectively and beneficially using the land, the provisions of the Act do not cease to apply to such land. In our opinion, therefore, though the structure was permitted to be erected by the Respondent No.2, the authority under the Act will have the jurisdiction to evict a person from the land which may result in his removal from the structure owned by him under the provisions of the Act. All that will be necessary is that he will have to be given reasonable time to remove his structure. In our opinion, merely because the Government permitted - 8 - him to erect the structure for more beneficial use of the premises, he cannot permanently occupy the land, though the Government has refused to renew his lease. In our opinion, therefore, the competent authority was not justified in rejecting the case of the Government holding that the Respondent No.2 cannot be evicted under the provisions of the Act. 6. In the result, therefore, petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 5-11-1992 passed by the competent authority is set aside. The Respondent No.2 is directed to be evicted from the premises. This order will now, in view of the order passed during the pendency of the petition, operate in relation to the alternate premises, which is permitted to be occupied by the Respondent No.2. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. 7. At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.2 is granted three weeks time to remove himself from the premises subject to the condition that within a period of one week from today the Respondent No.2 shall file an undertaking in this court undertaking to this Court to remove himself at the end of the - 9 - period of three weeks, unless he is able to obtain appropriate orders from the superior court. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE,J.)